Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Mortgage Arrears

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland are in arrears with mortgage payments; and how many houses have been repossessed as a result of mortgage default during the last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Information on the level of mortgage arrears and the number of repossessions is not available for Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: How convenient for the Minister. Does he accept that mortgage default is now one of the major causes of homelessness in Scotland and that 130 people in East Lothian became homeless last year because of mortgage default? That is about 15 per cent. of the official homelessness figure in my constituency. Is he further aware that a significant proportion of such folk bought their district council houses at a discount and are now having to be rehoused by the same local authority? Will he please admit that the Government's cockeyed housing policy has now made a crisis into a disaster of homelessness for many people?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that only 4 per cent. of homelessness applications were attributed to that cause by the applicants. I stress that Clackmannan district council operates a scheme for tenants who are aspiring owners but find themselves in difficulty. Any other district council may operate that scheme if it so wishes. We have also developed a cash incentive scheme for housing associations to assist homeless families. Few people become homeless because of mortgage default and the figure is well below the number in England.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that figures from the building societies show that about 96 per cent. of those with mortgages in the United Kingdom are not in default of any kind? Every trader would love to be able to present such figures. Does my hon. Friend also agree that there has been considerable interest in the extension of the rents-to-mortgages scheme, and can he tell me something about it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. First, 0·47 per cent. of all mortgage holders in Britain have been subject

to repossession. That is well below 1 per cent. and the percentage in Scotland is lower because market values are lower. My hon. Friend asked me about the rents-to-mortgages scheme. We launched our publicity on the scheme on Friday, and there have been more than 4,000 expressions of interest from local authority tenants throughout Scotland. That shows that many people believe that this is the bargain of the century.

Homeless Youngsters, London

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance his Department has given to agencies catering for homeless young Scots in London.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Responsibility for homeless persons in England, including the funding of voluntary agencies, rests with the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the local authorities concerned, but the Scottish Office is making available £50,000 a year for three years to voluntary bodies to assist projects to discourage young people from Scottish cities moving to London.

Mr. Watson: That is a pathetic response. There is a problem here and now, involving hundreds of young Scots in London, of which the Minister should be aware. Half of them come from Glasgow and many of them have a social work care background. The Minister should have read the booklet that was sent to him called, "Living on the Borderline", which was published last week by Borderline, Centrepoint and Shelter (Scotland). It tells a tragic tale. The Irish Government provide £500,000 to London agencies to deal with their young homeless. When will the Scottish Office take similar responsibility for young Scots in London?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The £50,000 is designed, exactly like the Irish scheme, to discourage young persons from leaving home. The scheme's purpose is to encourage people to obtain accommodation in their home areas. We have other initiatives. Some £72,000 has been allocated to the centre for housing research in Glasgow, which will carry out a study to see how social work can prevent homelessness. We have also provided £48,000 to the Scottish Council for Single Homeless. Over and above that, we have made an additional allocation to the four cities of Scotland and we have invited bids from the towns which have most homelessness—Renfrew, Dumbarton, Falkirk and Kirkcaldy. We think that that will be of substantial assistance.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the cities in Scotland were to allocate their empty council houses, that would help homelessness in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If a substantial proportion of the 26,000 empty houses were brought back into use, that would be of assistance. The code of practice that we will issue shortly takes into account the £50,000 project which seeks to discourage young persons from leaving their home areas.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recent meetings he has had with political parties in relation to the reform of local government finance.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I had a meeting on 12 February with representatives of the Scottish National party at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was present. I will meet representatives of the Scottish Liberal Democrats later today. Proposals made at those meetings will be taken into account in the current review of community charge matters.

Mr. Douglas: Is not it now becoming increasingly clear, as a result of those meetings and others, that local government finance in Scotland is in a state of crisis and that the indebtedness that has resulted from the past two years of the poll tax is well in excess of £500 million? Is the Secretary of State so sanguine as to think that he can persist with the concept of the poll tax in Scotland, or will he face up to his responsibilities and recognise that, if he does not rule it out, the electorate will rule him out?

Mr. Lang: The term "crisis" is hardly appropriate to a system in which 98 per cent. registration has been achieved and in which 95 per cent. collection is anticipated for the first year of the charge. Nine out of the 12 levying authorities have already collected 95 per cent. Their task would be eased considerably if Scottish National party Members would adopt a more responsible approach to the funding of local government. It is disgraceful that those who seek to make laws in this place should seek to break them when it comes to funding local authorities.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the additional support for capital allocation projects that he announced yesterday and which was welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will be extremely beneficial and will allow many local authorities to get ahead with valuable projects in the coming financial year?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I was particularly glad to be able to allocate more than £500 million in capital allocations to local authorities with particular emphasis on the improvement of school buildings, on general services, including the provision of factories where they are needed, and on the improvement of water services and sewerage, in respect of which we plan to increase funding by almost two thirds during a three-year period.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the growing problem caused by people who have hitherto paid the poll tax but who say that they intend to deduct from next year's poll tax the amount that is attributable to non-payment? In those circumstances, and bearing it in mind that my party has encouraged its members to pay, will he further acknowledge that the sooner the Government announce the abolition of the poll tax, the easier it will be to remove the problem of non-collection?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is grossly unfair that those who have paid their community charge should be expected to pay an SNP surcharge to cover non-payment by others. I urge everybody to make a

full contribution to local government and not to break the law. We are reviewing the community charge and considering possible methods of funding local government and I look forward to my meeting with the Liberal Democrats later this afternoon to carry those discussions further.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating both the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on coming to the conclusion that a property tax is a better idea than a poll tax? Is not it the case that the property tax is electorally attractive, as was demonstrated in last year's regional elections when the Labour party won a considerable victory, and that if we introduce such a tax it will leave the Minister of State looking something of a lulu?

Mr. Lang: I do not know how it will make the hon. Gentleman look when I remind him that, according to the opinion polls, the Labour party's roof tax proposal was more unpopular than the community charge has ever been and that fewer than 20 per cent. of the Labour party's own supporters supported it.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lesson of councils such as Eastwood is that Conservative councils provide efficient services with a relatively low community charge? Is not it a great pity that not more councils in Scotland are controlled by the Conservative party so that the poll tax could be lower?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right, for that is the lesson to be learnt from the outrageously high tax that is imposed in places such as Edinburgh, where the community charge is £584. The lesson for Edinburgh's residents is to vote for a Conservative administration in next year's district council elections, which will produce better government and a lower community charge.

Mr. Dewar: Did the Secretary of State have time this week to study the admirable article by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who was until recently Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he argued that the poll tax
is a tax so fundamentally flawed that no amount of tinkering or refinement, of amendment or reform, can make it acceptable. Abolition is the only course."?
He went on to argue trenchantly for a radically reformed rating system as the answer to local government finance. Does not the Secretary of State accept that there is a growing body of support—which includes the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Secretary of State for the Environment—for a property-based system and that the Secretary of State's intemperate attacks on that proposal are making him look silly? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman started to eat his words and to admit that he has got it wrong?

Mr. Lang: I remember when the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) were used almost verbatim to criticise the domestic rating system, which led us to introduce the community charge when my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore a senior member of the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) invites me to speculate on the outcome of the review. I will say only that we are considering carefully all the options and will present our solutions in due course.

School Repairs

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of education funding within Highland region, with specific regard to the needs of building repair and refurbishment.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Schools throughout Scotland will benefit from a 19 per cent. increase in resources for building and repair, making a total of more than £73 million. Highland region's share will be £3·8 million—an increase of 36 per cent.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that, based on the region's submission to the Scottish Office last November, that increase—however welcome—is still less than half the amount that the region identified as the bottom line expenditure required over a five-year period, to bring the condition of its schools up to a tolerable standard? The funding provided does not take account of population growth and higher new-build costs on the west coast—which is of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Does not he accept that the overall expenditure pattern will fail woefully to provide schools in the Highland region that are protected against the wind and rain? What will he do to change that?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that if Highland region wants to spend more, it is free to do so. Although I do not carry figures around in my head with great accuracy, I believe that I am right to say that the funding provided is almost £1 million more than the region was expecting and represents a substantial increase in resources. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged the failure of some local authorities to tackle such problems in the past and they are now being tackled as a consequence of the priority that he set.

Housing

Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss housing in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I expect to meet representatives of the housing committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in September.

Mrs. Adams: When the Minister meets COSLA's representatives, will he listen to them this time, and reinstate housing support grant in Scotland? That would give Renfrew district council in my constituency a grant of £16,289,000 at 1979 levels, which would enable it either to reduce rents by £3 a week or to take on board a more extensive housing repair system.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During the past 10 years, we have targeted housing benefit directly at the individual, rather than make huge sums of housing support grant available. We have made sure that the cost of hostel provision and the deficits are covered by housing support grant. A considerable number of councils have come into housing support grant as a result. Scottish

Homes is undertaking considerable expenditure in Ferguslie park, in the hon. Lady's constituency, which will total at least £3·6 million next year. That will help.

Mr. McAllion: One housing item for discussion, which should be of interest to the Minister when he meets the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, is the level of house building. Does he realise that, had the Government maintained the level of house building which they inherited from Labour in 1979, there would be more than 50,000 additional new houses in which to house the homeless and with which to reduce waiting lists? Is not his failure to maintain that level of building absolutely disgraceful? Since he cannot possibly defend such a record, will he now take the only honourable course open to him and tender his resignation, along with the rest of that broken-backed crew on the Front Bench?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Since 1979, 220,000 houses have been built in Scotland. If housing association units are counted in with the public sector, almost 60,000 units were built in the public sector. In 1989–90 more than 1,200 local authority houses were completed. If Dundee district council wants building more council houses to be a priority, it can be, provided that it is a priority within the council's allocation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When my hon. Friend meets COSLA to discuss housing, will he also discuss the needs of ex-service men and their families, who have had great difficulty finding accommodation—especially accommodation to buy—when they leave the services? Will he try to impress upon local authorities the fact that they should give more priority to them? If he cannot make progress in that direction, might he be prepared to involve housing associations more?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am in touch with the Ministry of Defence on that matter at present and I am interested in the suggestion that my right hon. Friend has made. I shall certainly follow it up in discussions with the Ministry.

Health Boards

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which bodies were consulted before appointments were made to the 15 reconstituted health boards in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The bodies consulted on appointments to the reconstituted health boards were all health boards, local health councils and local authorities, various trade unions, universities, health service professional bodies, voluntary bodies and a number of leading Scottish firms.

Mrs. Michie: It seems from what the Secretary of State says that democracy has gone out of the window for the health service in Scotland and that there is a clear and urgent case for a portion of health board members to be directly elected. What criteria were used for the election of health board members to the reconstituted boards? Was election based on ability or knowledge of the health boards, or was it—as it appears to us—based on affiliation to the Conservative party? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many members of health boards are card-carrying members of the Tory party or hold office in that party?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady demeans herself. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that appointment is based on political affiliation. In the vast majority of cases the political affiliations of members of health boards are not known. They are chosen for what they can contribute to the good running of the health boards and that is why we consult so widely with all the bodies that I mentioned.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety felt throughout Falkirk district council about the absence of any residents of Falkirk district on the new Forth Valley health board, and that that anxiety is shared even by leading Tories such as Bill Hughes and Councillor Malcolm McNicol? In view of the blatant political bias, as well as the geographical bias, will the Secretary of State now take steps to try to achieve a better balance, instead of allowing his colleague, the Minister responsible for health, blatantly to abuse his political power to appoint his friends, such as Mrs. Isbister and a lot of other Tory party hacks who seem hell-bent on trying to wreck the national health service when they should be defending and improving it?

Mr. Lang: As I have already said, members of health boards are not chosen for their political affiliations, which are not known in most cases. They are chosen for what they can contribute to the work of the health boards, based on the advice of a wide range of bodies. Geographical representation is not a relevant factor in the appointment of health boards. The proper means to represent interests of that type is through health councils.

NHS Patient Care

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives are planned to improve patient care in the national health service in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: New initiatives such as heart-lung transplant surgery, the helicopter ambulance service, the provision of nuclear magnetic resonance scanners and the introduction of a cochlear implant service are some of the examples of innovation in the health service to build on the Government's outstanding record.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the substantial extra funding awarded to the Dumfries and Galloway area health board will enable it to improve patient care substantially in the coming year? Will he congratulate the board—and, in particular, Dr. Christopher Isles—on the introduction of a new renal dialysis unit in Dumfries, which will benefit local patients enormously?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work being done by the board. I had the opportunity to meet some of its staff recently. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the progress being made in bringing kidney dialysis to patients in rural areas. That is part of a general policy that has been implemented in the Borders, preventing patients from having to travel long distances.
When we conducted a survey of patient satisfaction a couple of years ago, the Dumfries and Galloway health board emerged with one of the highest scores. I am sure that that is because management, doctors and staff are so committed to its purpose, which is to improve patient care.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I welcome the medical innovations described by the Minister, but why is he putting all that at risk by persisting with the completely discredited policy of allowing hospitals to opt into the NHS trust system? Will not the finances of trusts effectively be controlled from the centre? Their only freedom will be to seek permission to spend money from the Scottish Office, rather than deal with the matter locally through the health boards. Why, despite the widespread and total rejection of the scheme, do the Minister and the Government persist in acting against medical and public opinion?

Mr. Forsyth: Every time the hon. Gentleman says that there is no interest in the scheme, we seem to receive another application. Six hospitals throughout Scotland have now expressed interest. The proposal for Forresterhill in Aberdeen has come from consultants and management, because they believe that it will result in improved patient care. Once the Scottish Office has received a proposal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will examine it and decide whether to give it the go-ahead on the basis of whether it will improve patient care.
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the ability of hospitals to spend money without Scottish Office approval. The whole point of self-governing hospitals in the NHS trust system is that they will be free to make decisions at local level that would otherwise have been made over their heads. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the idea of giving local communities a chance to run and manage their hospitals.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome any news from my hon. Friend about the extension of dialysis treatment for kidney patients. Is he aware, however, that a kidney patient on dialysis who is given erythropoetin will become almost as well as a normal man? Can he assure me that Scotland has enough funds to provide that drug for every renal patient who could benefit from it?

Mr. Forsyth: I know my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am happy to give him the assurance that he seeks. Notwithstanding reports that have appeared in some sections of the media, the position is clear: if a consultant believes that the drug should be prescribed, it should be prescribed, and the resources must be found to pay for it. I have corresponded with the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about this, and the position is on record.

Mr. Galbraith: Was not the Minister entirely wrong to say that expressions of interest in trust status are coming from hospitals? In fact, they are coming from a small clique within those hospitals. Has the Minister not read what was said recently by John Cooper, chief executive of the Royal Free hospital, an opting-out hospital, in London? He said:
All elements of financial management are being effectively controlled centrally. The only freedom we have is freedom to ask permission, and we can do that already.
Opting-out hospitals are run not by the health boards but by accountants in the Scottish Office.

Mr. Forsyth: I am interested by the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question. I take it that, if self-governing status indeed means that decisions are made at local level, the hon. Gentleman will support it. I am happy to assure him that there is no question of self-governing hospitals'


being managed centrally. The whole point is that they will have contracts with the health boards and will remain a part of the NHS, and that doctors and management will have an opportunity to run them locally. What I said earlier was that the proposals for NHS trusts were coming from doctors and management who believed that it would improve patient care. I believe that those proposals should be evaluated on the basis of their merits, not on the basis of Labour party dogma.

Development and Enterprise, Borders

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to promote development and enterprise in the Borders.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government are putting in place specific arrangements to give local control to the promotion of development and enterprise in the Borders.
The Borders local enterprise company will work in partnership with the private sector, local authorities and other agencies in the area to deliver the Government's economic development, training and environmental improvement programmes in the manner best suited to the needs of the area.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister think that adequate cash or investment programmes are available to local and statutory authorities in the Borders? Is he aware that the Borders local enterprise council made a bid for £12·6 million, to invest in capital developments but was awarded only £8·5 million which represents the biggest cut for any local enterprise company in Scotland? Is he further aware that Borders regional council asked for £4 million for future capital development but was awarded only £1 million? How can statutory authorities buy the necessary sites, set up advance factories and support local industry if they have inadequate resources to enable them to do so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The allocations represent a significant increase. The allocation to Borders Enterprise represents an increase of 27 per cent. over comparable spending in the area this year and Borders Enterprise will have grant powers to encourage the provision of advance factories. It is keen to use those powers rather than to provide the property itself. District councils in the region received capital allocations totalling £1·8 million, an increase of £260,000, and Borders regional council received an allocation of £1·2 million, which was an increase of £350,000. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and we recognise the need to provide premises for alternative sources of employment to diversify the local economy. The increased allocations reflect that. In addition, local enterprise companies will have authority to commit up to £250,000 on any project and discretion to devise specific initiatives to reflect local circumstances. Those matters can be followed up with the companies.

Beer

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of the reforms to the licensed trade following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommendations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I confirm, however, that the orders made by him under the Fair Trading Act 1973, in response to the MMC report, apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the MMC report and the subsequent legislation cover the United Kingdom, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 does not cover Scotland? As a result, licensed trade tenants in Scotland are dealt with less favourably than those south of the border. That is particularly serious in view of the haste with which brewery managed and tenanted houses are being exchanged in order to fulfil the MMC's requirements. Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet representatives of the licensed trade in Scotland to hear how, in practice, the MMC report is leading not to increased choice and competition or cheaper beer but to a raw deal for licensed house tenants?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable on these matters, rightly says that there is a legislative difference between north and south of the border. The purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Act was to bring pub tenants in England and Wales in line with other business tenants. It does not apply to Scotland, but Scottish licensees are on a par with other business tenants under the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949.
The Scottish Licensed Trade Association is an extremely responsible body, the president of which is a resident of Eastwood. I assure my hon. Friend that either my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs or I will be happy to meet a delegation to discuss the matter.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are currently unemployed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: In January 1991, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland was 201,300. Despite the small upturn during the past quarter, unemployment in Scotland has fallen by almost 140,000. It is now 40 per cent. lower than four years ago.

Mr. Brown: Does the Secretary of State realise, despite his phony figures, that Scotland has been devastated by unemployment? In my constituency, for example, GEC Ferranti has closed a plant and is paying off many of its employees, and the same thing is happening at the Rank Hovis McDougall Caledonian mill. On top of that ICI is closing, or intends to close, Scottish Agricultural Industries, which produces fertilizers, because of Government opposition to the Kemira takeover bid. That is clearly a tragedy for the Scottish economy and for the local economy of Leith. Will the Secretary of State ask his Tory friends at ICI to hold fire in the meantime? Will he meet me to discuss the local problems of my constituents who clearly want to defend local skills and local industries, which the right hon. Gentleman's Government do not intend to do?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the answer that I gave to the main question when I explained that unemployment, far from rising, had fallen by 140,000 in the past four years. In the year to September 1990, manufacturing employment in Scotland increased by 9,000, and the civilian work force has increased by 200,000 over the past three years. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, unemployment has fallen by no less than 43 per cent. in the past four years, with a total fall of 3,000.

Mr. David Marshall: On behalf of Glasgow Labour Members, I wrote to the Secretary of State seeking a meeting with him to discuss unemployment in the city of Glasgow, where more than 48,000 people were idle in January. Does he accept that his reply, which was received today and stated that the level of unemployment in the Glasgow travel-to-work area—not the city of Glasgow —is better than that of many other areas in Scotland and that the time is not appropriate to meet us to discuss unemployment, is an unbelievably callous answer? Just what level does unemployment have to reach in the city of Glasgow before the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meet us? Is he still not aware that the eight constituencies with the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland are all in Glasgow?

Mr. Lang: Of course unemployment in Glasgow is still too high, but the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that it has fallen substantially in the past four years—by between 2,000 and 3,000 in every constituency in Glasgow. That is reflected in the overall figures which show, as I have said, that unemployment has fallen by almost 140,000 in the past four years. What I look forward to seeing in Glasgow, as elsewhere throughout Scotland, is Scottish Enterprise and the new local enterprise companies getting down to tackle the problems in each local enterprise company area and going about their business with their budgets which, in total, including Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, exceed £0·5 billion, to tackle the problems in ways which relate directly to the individual problems of each area.

Mr. Holt: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend heard the reply that was recently given in the House by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when I asked a question about the activities of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which are leading directly to the closure of the factory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), and which could have a knock-on effect in my constituency by bringing to an end the viability of the only potash mine in this country. That would adversely affect the country as a whole, our balance of payments and unemployment in both Scotland and England. It is still not too late to pull this one round, but it would mean a Secretary of State who arrogantly said that no Minister had ever gone against the recommendations of an MMC report for the first time standing up, being a man in his own right and refusing to accept the MMC's recommendations.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend may wish to pursue that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but I am sure that he will agree that one of the merits of the MMC is its arm's-length method of operation. The MMC looked closely at all the implications of the decision before reaching its conclusions.

Mr. Worthington: All Opposition Members are deeply cynical about the way in which the Secretary of State uses dates. I remind him that the Government have been in power for 12 years, not four, and that unemployment has mounted over that time and is rising again. As we enter a recession which is affecting Scotland, why are local enterprise companies being faced with a cut in their budgets which means that less will be spent in each area in Scotland this year on the functions of the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency than was spent last year? Why is it that in Lanarkshire, of all places, when a bid was put in for £50 million, in real terms only £30 million was allocated?

Mr. Lang: With regard to the budget for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, whose figures are largely speculative and widely inaccurate for the most part, the combined budget of the two new bodies will exceed £500 million. On training we are spending about six times what the Labour Government spent 12 years ago. Far from the Government having a bad record on unemployment, we have seen a dramatic improvement in the last few years as we got away from the after-effects of the Socialist Government and all the damage that they did to the Scottish economy. Unemployment in Scotland is now below the EC average. Long-term unemployment continues to fall; it fell by 12 per cent. last year—the sharpest fall anywhere in the United Kingdom—as a result of the improvements in the economy brought about by the Conservative Government.

Warrant Sales

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of warrant sales to enforce poll tax payments in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I am satisfied that the powers available to local authorities in Scotland for the collection of community charge arrears are adequate for that purpose.

Mr. Wray: Will the Minister explain why he is always misleading the House on percentages? He has referred to a collection rate of 92 per cent. in quite a number of local authorities throughout Scotland. He knows very well that since 31 January Strathclyde regional council, the largest local authority in Scotland, has collected only £247 million —less than 60 per cent. of the £457 million for which it sent out poll tax bills? It has cut the final notices to 38,000 and sent out 754,000 warrants. Surely the Government must recognise that the poll tax will not work. Local authorities are still jackbooting the most vulnerable people in society by operating warrant sales.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. Local authorities have collected, or expect to collect, 95 per cent. of their budgeted income for last year. Strathclyde has failed to use warrant sales so far and the comptroller of audit has rightly criticised the performance of authorities in failing to implement collection procedures in accordance with the statutory timetable.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As has already been mentioned, there is a deep resentment among those who pay and obey the law as regards those who will not pay. Is my hon. Friend aware that the resentment is compounded in areas


such as Kincardine and Deeside, where the percentage collection is good, but where next year people will have to pay more than a proportion of what is uncollected in that area because other district councils, such as Aberdeen, have collected a lower proportion of the community charge that is due? Is it fair that community charge payers in Kincardine and Deeside will have to pay more, not just to compensate for those who fail to pay in their own area?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. A tide of outrage is sweeping Scotland among law-abiding citizens who have to pay the SNP surcharge. I can perhaps reassure my right hon. Friend about the position in Grampian. He may have seen an article recently in The Scotsman headed,
Labour rift as warrant sales approved".
In the article it was announced that Grampian region had decided to go ahead with eight warrant sales for non-payment. The article stated that the Labour leader, Councillor Jurgen Thomaneck, said:
It would be asking too much of us to condone illegal acts by people who evade the poll tax in a way that is to the detriment of other poll tax payers.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree with that. I hope that those sentiments will get a ringing endorsement from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Wilson: In the last months of the poll tax, will the Minister finally seek to bring some common sense to at least some parts of its operation? Will he relieve local authorities of the need to pursue this blunderbuss approach in the legislation which means that the poorest people in the land, who are in arrears on a proportion of the poll tax of up to 20 per cent., have to be pursued in exactly the same way as the wealthiest people in the community who default voluntarily, with which I have no truck whatever? Will the Minister bring to the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the possibility of getting rid of the 20 per cent. minimum payment? Does he agree that if the poorest people in Scottish society, who are being hounded for 20 per cent. of the poll tax, were taken out of the equation much of the administrative shambles, chaos and misery that surround the poll tax would disappear with them?

Mr. Stewart: There will be no amnesty. The community charge benefit is widely available to assist those on low incomes. Some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers may have built up a large level of debt. In many cases, the fault lies not with the Opposition Front Bench but with many of the hon. Members behind him and with the Scottish National party.

Mr. Oppenheim: Surely the effectiveness of warrant sales must be called into question, bearing in mind the large number of Scottish Members of Parliament who still have not paid their poll tax. What does my hon. Friend the Minister think of a party which aspires to law-making but condones so much law-breaking in its own ranks?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was referring to the Labour party or to the Scottish National party. Almost certainly, he was referring to both. Of course, he is absolutely right. Scottish local authorities have failed so far to use warrant sales and they have been consistently criticised for the delay. In some authorities, such as Borders and Fife, payment levels are extremely high. If Borders and Fife can do it, so can Lothian and Strathclyde.

Special Educational Needs

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the educational pack "Taking Up The Challenge", funded by the Scottish Education Department, and published by the Committee on Special Educational Needs in January 1991; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: "Taking Up The Challenge" is part of a concerted effort by the Government to provide additional help and support to children with moderate learning difficulties.

Mrs. Ewing: On two occasions in the past 10 days the Minister has said that he will make available additional funding for learning support in primary schools. Will he spell out exactly what he means by that increased level of support? Will it mean additional teachers or additional resources? How much money is involved? When will it happen? Or is this just a smokescreen to draw attention away from national testing?

Mr. Forsyth: Far from being a smokescreen, it is a response to the representations that we have received as a result of the introduction of national testing, including representations from the hon. Lady. We are currently considering how we can target resources to help children in primary schools who are having difficulties with the three Rs and who have been identified as a result of the introduction of national tests and the new five to 14 programme. We currently have a pilot scheme under way. Once it is concluded, we shall be in a position to assess the level of response and the most appropriate form of response.

Hospitals, Glasgow

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the future of general hospitals in the Greater Glasgow area.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Greater Glasgow health board's proposals for rationalising and improving its acute services have been approved by my right hon. Friend following consultation.

Mr. Martin: Is the Minister aware that there is anxiety in the north of the city about Stobhill? He will know that new maternity facilities are to be built at the royal infirmary. Many people in the north end of Glasgow believe that that could be the end of Stobhill as a general hospital. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there is a future for Stobhill and that it will continue as a general hospital?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty fighter for Stobhill. The proposals in respect of the maternity services are before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and are still under consideration. As the hon. Gentleman said, they include building a new maternity hospital at the royal infirmary. I can certainly give him the assurance that he seeks. Stobhill will gain additional facilities, including renal services and an additional 15 accident and emergency beds. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I know of no future proposals for changes at that excellent hospital.

Mr. Dewar: As the Minister knows, in Glasgow there are hospitals which are on the hit list for the opting out procedure. I remind him that, in approaching this matter, he said that one of the tests would be a substantial commitment of those likely to be involved in the new management. Does he agree that that does not mean six persons—any six persons in any hospital? The consultants in South Ayrshire hospital voted by 50 to nine against opting out, and those in Aberdeen Royal infirmary voted by 82 to seven against. Does the Minister agree that, even in his Looking Glass world, that cannot be equated with a substantial commitment on the part of those who will be involved in new set-ut? He talks about local choice and local democracy. Does he agree that forcing opting out through on that basis would be offensive and indefensible?

Mr. Forsyth: No Government—not even any previous Labour Government—have taken decisions concerning the future of hospitals on the basis of votes or ballots. The criteria for the approval of applications for self-governing status are set out in the working paper, which the hon. Gentleman has seen, and they are perfectly clear. The hon. Gentleman referred to a "hit list". I regard that as a fairly offensive term. In hospitals throughout Scotland, people are looking behind the Labour party's rhetoric and seeing the opportunity to improve patient care. In the case of the South Ayrshire hospital, in respect of which an application is coming into the Scottish Office, the leading person responsible is a consultant with a distinguished history in the national health service. I do not believe that people of that calibre would do anything other than go forward with proposals that they thought were in the best interests of patients. That is the sole criterion on which my right hon. Friend's decisions will be based.

Forestry

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to develop forestry within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lang: The Government remain fully committed to the expansion of forestry in the United Kingdom, and are providing substantial grants to encourage tree planting. Woodland management grants will be introduced from 1 April 1992.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. I wonder whether, in his busy programme, he could find time to come and visit the forests in south Dorset, for which he is responsible in terms of policy. Can he given us some indication how forestry has developed in the past 10 years, and whether any changes in policy have been brought about by the farm woodland scheme and other schemes intended to take farmland out of food production?

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to visit south Dorset. I should certainly like at some stage to take it up, as my responsibilities for forestry stretch throughout the United Kingdom. I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that there has been a major expansion of forestry in the past 10 years, with about 250,000 hectares of new planting. In addition, the processing industry has been revitalised, with investment of about £1 billion. The farm woodland scheme, which we are currently reviewing, has led to about 2,200 applications

to plant about 15,000 hectares—a high proportion of the trees being broad-leaves. The forestry industry is in good heart and in good shape.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the timber industry based on planting in the northern part of the Highlands has been set back by the designation process of the Nature Conservancy Council? Will he ensure that the regional council gives impetus to the review of policy? Its first intervention has not produced the resolution of the dispute between the parties that was hoped for.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that my predecessor as Secretary of State for Scotland gave this matter very close attention and sought a solution that would reconcile the conflicting interests of land use in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, having regard in particular to the important environmental aspects, but also to the need to generate employment through tree planting and in other ways. I hope that these matters will proceed more satisfactorily and more effectively once Scottish Natural Heritage is fully established. Indeed, our proposals on natural heritage areas, which we shall make clear very shortly, may well have considerable application to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Smoked Salmon

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce temperature controls on the distribution of smoked salmon produced in Scotland and posted from there.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We propose that food delivered by mail order, including smoked fish, will be exempt from the regulations requiring temperature controls for the distribution and storage of specified foodstuffs.

Mr. Steen: I congratulate the Secretary of State on making regulations after research has been done and not, as happens in England, making regulations first and then conducting the research to see whether they were needed. Does the Minister agree that the Government seem to be getting more and more neurotic and hysterical about food hygiene? Are there any known cases of food poisoning from smoked salmon, smoked cheese or any other smoked products? Will he confirm that he will ease off making regulations until thorough research has been done showing that there is evidence of food contamination or food poisoning?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to my answer. The Government are completely committed to food safety. Such issues are never entirely black and white; we must ensure that we have controls that are practical and not disproportionate to the risk. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have commissioned research at Torry and we shall be able to review the matter once that research is to hand.

Scottish Economy

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the Scottish economy and unemployment.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received no request from the convention for a discussion of economic issues.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that my constituents are outraged at the decision to postpone yet again the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse, with all the job implications that that entails? Does not he feel that his new role of looking after Lanarkshire has been specifically undermined? Does he accept that, in the past 99 days, yet another appalling decision under so-called new management means the same old story of job losses and lost opportunities for my constituents, who are anxious to get rid of the new management as quickly as possible?

Mr. Stewart: Perhaps I may point out to the hon. Gentleman the progress that has been made with the M74, which is crucial to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Preparation work on the Shawhead-Newhouse scheme is continuing and is expected to be completed by 1994. I share the hon. Member's concern about jobs in Lanarkshire and throughout Scotland. That is more than can be said for the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to be going to extraordinary lengths to find some overseas appointment to enable him to avoid attending the Scottish Labour party conference at Aberdeen—but who can blame him?

Primary Testing

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has had (a) in favour and (b) against primary testing.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Some 400 representations have been received covering a complete spectrum of views on testing.

Mr. McAvoy: Is the Minister aware that throughout Scotland, where parents have been balloted, an overwhelming number of decisions have been made against the tests? In my constituency, in the schools of St. Mark's, St. Columbkilles Hallside and St. Bride's, 70 to 80 per cent. of parents are opposed to the tests. It is clear that those tests are part of the Minister's promised bloody revolution for education in Scotland. Even at this late stage, will he consider withdrawing the tests and seeking consensus for the sake of our children's future?

Mr. Forsyth: The regulations on testing were approved by the House without opposition in debate from any Opposition Member. They place a clear duty on education authorities to administer the tests and——

Mr. Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is the last two minutes.

Mr. Worthington: We prayed against the regulations on 26 October, they appeared on 25 October and we demanded a debate on them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for answers given from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Forsyth: The point——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is unseemly behaviour.

Mr. Forsyth: The point that I made—that the regulations were not opposed in debate in the House—is correct. They place a clear duty on the education authorities to administer the test. Until now, the Labour party and the EIS have argued that parental choice and involvement should not extend to the curriculum and to professional matters. Their conversion is as rapid as it is unexpected. I have no doubt that, having released this genie from the bottle, education authorities will be reflecting on the implications. Are parents to be able to withdraw children from physical education, music, computer studies and the technical and vocational education initiative, for example, or to insist on the inclusion of their children in classes on a subject? Once the pilot testing round has been completed, we shall consider what further action is necessary.

Gulf Casualties

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reception facilities in Scottish hospitals for service personnel returning from the Gulf.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: With the rapid and successful conclusion of the ground offensive to liberate Kuwait, the need for Scottish hospitals to maintain special arrangements to receive service personnel injured in the Gulf conflict has now passed. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking all NHS staff involved for the admirable way in which they have responded.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister rises to answer the debate on 15 March on health problems in the middle east, will the Scottish Office submit some kind of memorandum offering advice as to what it can do about the appalling problems of typhoid, cholera, hepatitis and other diseases, in which we have an expertise that is desperately needed in the middle east?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the expertise in Scotland on tropical and contagious diseases. I shall be happy to discuss with him how we can be of assistance.

Points of Order

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. On page 2426 of the Order Paper today, you will see that the first question is in my name. This question has been transferred from the Department of which I originally asked the question to another. In the process, it has been rewritten, and as a consequence of that rewriting, nonsense has been made of the original question. I asked the question originally of the Attorney-General, and if he had answered my question I might have been enabled to put a supplementary question to him concerning the scandals on the Isle of Man and the way in which people have been defrauded by those who run that island.
By virtue of what has happened, I am once again denied that opportunity. If every time I table a question to the Attorney-General it is automatically transferred to the Home Secretary, I shall never get an answer to the question that I am tabling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Holt: I am asking you, Sir, whether it is in order not merely to transfer questions but to rewrite them so that the consequential content of the question is changed. I asked the Attorney-General what contact he had had; I did not want to know what contact the Home Office has had. If I cannot ask that question, the people whom I represent will be denied the opportunity for justice.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the first question, it is in order to transfer questions. I refer the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, to page 286 of "Erskine May", which says:
It is a long established principle that decisions on the transfer of questions rests with Ministers and it is not a matter in which the Chair seeks to intervene.
I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that.
As to the question whether his question has suffered a material change, I shall look into the matter, but if it simply directs the question from the Attorney-General to another Minister, I am afraid that that would be covered by the ruling that I have already given.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Now, Mr. Ewing.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise if you feel that this is boring. I accept that you are not responsible for ministerial answers, but surely the time has come to do something about the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who, not once but three times today—he must know this—deliberately distorted facts and deliberately misled the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would allow "distorted", but not "misled". Will the hon. Member please withdraw that remark?

Mr. Ewing: The Minister, unknowingly or accidentally, misled the House. Whatever approach he took, he is certainly guilty of leaving an impression with the House that is totally contrary to anything that the facts will bear out. This is becoming a regular feature of the Minister's approach to the House of Commons——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that no occupant of the Chair can be responsible for the answers given to questions. I thought that the matter had been put right for the Opposition by the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why, despite your earlier strictures, we continue to suffer lengthy exchanges between the Opposition and Government Front-Bench spokesmen during Scottish questions? May I ask why you continue to persist in calling English Members, which means that Scottish Members are ignored?

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member knows, he is frequently called on questions about Scotland and England. This is a United Kingdom Parliament. I well understand the hon. Member's frustration at not being called——

Mr. Ron Brown: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) at not being called on Question 7, but I must seek a balance in calling Back Benchers who have questions on the Order Paper. It seems to me—I hope that the House agrees—that if an hon. Member has been fortunate enough in the shuffle to have a question on the Order Paper, he should be given some precedence. I have tried today to ensure that that happened.

Mr. Ron Brown: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to raise a point of order or something else?

Mr. Brown: Trust me, Mr. Speaker. As a socialist and a Scot, I seek your guidance. Clearly the acoustics in this place are not good. Sometimes we do not hear what the Government say. As I understand it, the Government are offering, perhaps slightly hypocritically, to help the Iraqi people in their hour of need and are offering to send out medics and perhaps engineers and others. Are the Government really offering to do that? Whatever the politics of the situation, the Iraqi people suffered unnecessarily because of the Government's evil intentions——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not use a point of order to make a political and debating point. That has nothing to do with me.

BILLS PRESENTED

RAILWAY RE-OPENINGS (TRIBUNAL)

Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Tony Speller and Mr. Nigel Spearing, presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a tribunal to examine proposals for the re-opening of railway lines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July. [Bill 102.]

FORESTRY

Sir Hector Monro, supported by Mr. Calum Macdonald and Mrs. Margaret Ewing, presented a Bill to increase from 9 to 12 the maximum number of members of a regional advisory committee maintained under section 37 of the Forestry Act 1967: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 March. [Bill 101.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters)

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would once again allow GCHQ employees to belong to an independent union of their choice. Just over seven years ago, on 25 January 1984, the then Foreign Secretary announced in the House that unions would be banned at GCHQ. Indeed, on 1 March this month, it was the seventh anniversary of the time limit given to the employees at GCHQ to sign what was described as an option form. That form states:
I, … have read and understood General Notice 100/84 and wish to continue to be employed at GCHQ. I agree to resign from membership of any trade union to which I belong. I also undertake not to join a trade union or to engage in its affairs or to discuss with its officials my terms of employment or conditions of service or any other matter relating to my employment at GCHQ. I understand, however, that I may join a Departmental Staff Association approved for the time being by Director GCHQ.
That was an infamous document, and no British citizen should be forced to sign such a document. No one should be surprised to learn that 25 January, when the Foreign Secretary announced the ban, and 1 March, when everyone had to sign that form in order to continue as an employee at GCHQ, are well remembered. This state of affairs is totally unacceptable to trade unions and the labour movement.
At the time of the ban, much was made by Ministers about industrial action that had occurred at GCHQ, particularly in 1979 and 1981. It was argued that the ban on union membership would ensure that there was no more disruption. The then Foreign Secretary, however, when trying to justify the ban, conceded that no threat to the nation's security resulted from industrial action that had taken place at GCHQ. Sir John Nott, Defence Secretary in 1981, said that an industrial dispute had not in any way affected operational capability.
Hon. Members may argue that, as we have just been through a war, that justifies even more the ban on union membership.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: indicated assent.

Mr. Winnick: I note that the hon. Member believes that.
Union membership was allowed of course at GCHQ in 1982 during the Falklands war. Sir Brian Tovey, then director general at GCHQ, sent a telegram to all the employees in Cheltenham and the outstation after the Falklands war. That telegram read:
High level praise. There can be no doubt that this praise has been well deserved. It has been earned by hard and dedicated work by you as individuals.
Less than two years after that telegram had been sent, the Government showed their thanks by taking away the basic right of those dedicated individuals to belong to an independent trade union.
It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving), who represents so many of the people who work at GCHQ and live in Cheltenham, was highly critical of the Government ban. He made a courageous speech in


the House when he said that there was never a hint of disruption at GCHQ during the Falklands campaign, and that to imply otherwise had hurt and infuriated the staff. He also said that the slur that union membership at GCHQ involved the risk of putting people's lives in danger was completely beyond the bounds of decency and truth.
In December 1989, the certification officer made a decision on the application for a Government communications staff federation—one can imagine what type of organisation that is. He considered whether that represented an independent trade union, and, not surprisingly, he came to the view that it was not an independent trade union at all. He said that the staff federation functions subject to the approval of the director at GCHQ.
I am myself an active trade unionist, and I believe that it was an impertinence in the first place that any such application was made. How can a staff association that is bound by the organisation in which the employees work be described as an independent trade union?
The International Labour Organisation, which largely functions under the auspices of the United Nations and works closely with it, has repeatedly called on the Government to rescind the ban and to negotiate with the unions. In recent weeks, we have heard much about binding Security Council resolutions. The House knows that I believed that those resolutions had to be implemented, but when the International Labour Organisation has told the Government that the ban is wrong and that they should negotiate with the unions surely it is only right and proper for the Government to take notice. The Government have completely ignored all its requests.
I imagine that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when Prime Minister, was the most enthusiastic member of the Cabinet urging a ban on union membership. We are told that since her departure various matters have been looked at and that there is a different kind of Government who are more caring and less dogmatic. They are even looking at the poll tax, for which we are told that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. No doubt we shall know more about that after tomorrow's by-election. If they are really a different kind of Government, why have they not rescinded the ban on union membership at GCHQ? If the right hon. Member for Finchley was largely responsible for that ban, as I believe she was, why will the Government not do away with that dogma and prejudice, because that is what it is?
Anyone who thinks that the issue will go away and that, as it arose seven years ago, it is a dead issue could not be more wrong. We intend to keep the issue very much alive. We intend to ensure that people are reminded, as they are year after year by the demonstrations at Cheltenham, that in January 1984 a basic right of British citizens was taken away. I understand that no Conservative Member wants to oppose the Bill. [Interruption.] If the ban is right, I hope that a Conservative Member will have the guts to stand up and defend it.
The ban should be removed now. This Tory Government remain the same as they always were, regardless of who leads them. If they do not remove the ban, the next Labour Government will do away with it and

will ensure that employees at GCHQ have the same rights as the rest of us to belong to an independent trade union. The sooner that that comes about the better.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Walker: I do. I oppose the Bill because the record on this matter must be properly set straight so that the people of this country are able to understand it. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the trade unions at GCHQ had not merited the ban and that it was wrong. I shall give a history of the events. The trade unions at Cheltenham always knew, and were never in any doubt, that, because of the unique nature of their work, if they took part in any kind of industrial action, the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, would have no option but to bring in measures to remove the right to such action. That applied under Labour and Conservative Governments.

Mr. Winnick: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North shakes his head. Let me tell him that, for six and a half years, I was a trade union representative, and in the 1960s I represented the largest union at GCHQ. That was during the period of office of a Labour Government. I was an employee when sensitive and delicate work important to our security was being carried out. That required 365 days of work a year, 24 hours a day, and the civil service and the military were closely involved. Lives could have been put at risk in various parts of the world, and that was properly and fully understood by the trade unions and their representatives.
Government action was taken for two reasons. First, the trade unions took action at Cheltenham even though there was an unwritten agreement that they would never take such action. Secondly, the trade unions were exposed because of publicity generated by trade unions and political activists throughout the country who tried to make political capital out of the situation. They were prepared to put the nation's security at risk for purely political ends. Such action had not occurred in all the years that GCHQ had functioned so effectively and well looking after the nation's security.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North has obviously not made any attempt to study the history of the matter, nor has he spoken to the vast majority of the people who work at GCHQ. If he had, he would understand that they would have no truck with such a measure.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Winnick: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Pressure is being applied by the Government Whip to stop the Division.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the Tellers to come to the Chair.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been disgracefully suggested that pressure has been applied on me by the Government Whip. I can assure you that that is not the case. It never has been. Perish the thought.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is the type of Member who would allow any pressure to be put upon him.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Winnick: Conservative Members do not have the gumption to vote against my Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Michael Foot, Mrs. Maria. Fyfe, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Gavin Strang.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS)

Mr. David Winnick accordingly presented a Bill to provide for persons employed at the Government Communications Headquarters to have the right to belong to an independent trade union of their choice; arid for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 17 May and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As there has been a dramatic change of mood in the House since the ban on the trade unionists at CGHQ took place and there is now a universal desire to have trade union rights there re-established, and as the Bill will now go through the House unopposed and with the support of the Government, will you advise us how we can enable this simple and uncontrovercial measure to pass quickly through the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has named 17 May. We cannot do much about that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, when ten-minute Bills are spoken against, they should be followed by a vote. The principle is simple. If an hon. Member declares that he wishes to speak against such a Bill but does not vote, he could, in some circumstances, deprive another Member of the opportunity of opposing the Bill who wanted to vote.
When the two voices on the Conservative Benches said, "No," including that of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who spoke against the Bill, it was noticeable to all hon. Members that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), a Government Whip, went across to those two hon. Members and convinced them not to vote. It is almost certain, Mr. Speaker, that we would have won a handsome victory, which would have been clear in the Lobbies. I fear that, on the day set down for the Second Reading, a Tory Whip will rise in his place on the Government Front Bench, object to the Bill, and kill it. We need the power to carry the Bill through into legislation.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is wrong to say that opposition to the Bill must be carried to a Division. That is not so. However, if a right hon. or hon. Member seeks to oppose a Bill, he must say the word "No" when I put the Question, and that was done. It is not always necessary to have a Division, as the hon. Member knows from frequent occasions in the past. Furthermore, I cannot be held responsible for what is said in private conversations.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is in order for a right hon. or hon. Member to enter the Chamber to hear the case that is being made for a Bill before making up his mind whether or not he should oppose that particular Bill? I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and anyone who listened to my own will have realised that I was opposing his Bill. That is exactly what I set out to do, on the basis of his remarks.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is right. I would normally receive prior notification that a Bill was to be opposed, but I did not receive such notification today.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often stated that the ten-minute Bill procedure should not be abused. On the last occasion that I raised a point of order on that subject, you confirmed that my remarks were correct. Is it right for a right hon. or hon. Member to oppose a Bill but not to force a vote? Even more important is the fact that we all saw the Government Whip approach the two Conservative Members concerned and tell them not to force a Division. Those two hon. Members are guilty of being spineless and behaved despicably.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Member is so concerned about. After all, his Bill obtained an unopposed Second Reading. What is he worried about?

Mr. Donald Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The incident to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred was not obvious to all. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was merely seeking the opinions of my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea what happened.

NORTHERN IRELAND(EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise or require payments into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding that such provisions could not have been proposed in Committee without an Instruction from the House, amendments may be proposed on consideration of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill to provide for the enforcement of orders and the punishment of offences outside Northern Ireland.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 5

CONFISCATION ORDERS

'.—(1) Where a person is convicted in the Crown Court of a relevant offence the court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, make a confiscation order if it is satisfied that he has (whether before or after the coming into force of this Part of this Act) benefited from terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another; and that order shall require him to pay an amount equal to what the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of those activities.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) a person engages in terrorist-related activities if he engages in activities which consist of or involve the commission of one or more relevant offences;
(b) a person benefits from terrorist-related activities if he obtains money or other property as a direct or indirect result of those activities; and
(c) a person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities are the money or other property obtained by him as mentioned above.

(3) A court shall not on convicting a defendant of a relevant offence make a confiscation order against him unless—

(a) he is in the same proceedings convicted of another relevant offence committed on a separate occasion (whether before or after the coming into force of this Part of this Act) since the beginning of the period of six years ending when those proceedings were instituted; or
(b) he is shown to have committed another relevant offence as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(4) In subsection (3)(a) above the reference to an offence of which a person is convicted includes a reference to an offence taken into consideration by the court in determining his sentence.

(5) A court shall not on convicting a defendant of a relevant offence make a confiscation order against him unless it is satisfied that, at some time since the commission of that offence, the realisable property held by him has exceeded £20,000 or such other amount as is for the time being prescribed for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6) A court shall not make a confiscation order if the defendant satisfies the court that the circumstances in which the terrorist-related activities in question were engaged in would make it unfair or oppressive for such an order to be made.

(7) If when making a confiscation order the court is satisfied that the amount that might be realised in the case of the defendant at that time is less than the amount which the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities, the order shall require him to pay the amount that might then be so realised.

(8) For the purpose of assessing the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities in a case where a confiscation order has previously been made against him, the court shall leave out of account any of his proceeds of such activities that are shown to the court to have been taken into account in determining the amount to be paid under that order.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: Government new clause 6—Provisions supplementary to section (Confiscation orders).

Government new clause 7—Relevant offences.

Government new clause 8—Realisable property, value and gifts.

Government new clause 9—Assumptions as to benefit and value of proceeds.

Government new clause 10—Statements, etc., relevant to making confiscation orders.

Government new clause 11—Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities.

Government new clause 12—Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities.

Government new clause 13—Enforcement and supplementary provisions.

Government new clause 14—Interpretation of confiscation provisions.

Government amendments Nos. 18, 21 to 31, 15, 32, and 34 to 38.

Mr. Brooke: New clause 5 is the first of a series of 10 closely related new clauses. Together with an associated new schedule, they will, if approved, provide for the confiscation of assets belonging to persons who have benefited from terrorist-related activities. The new provisions are aimed at those persons who have involved themselves, or who may be tempted to involve themselves, in the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If they become law, persons who are convicted of a range of offences—of a type known to be committed by terrorist financiers—will be liable to personal financial loss, as well as to whatever penal sanction the court convicting them may impose. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if, when introducing new clause 5, I also say something about the confiscation scheme as a whole—the background to it, its rationale and its main features.
You and other hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, will note that the 10 clauses and the schedule contain a good deal of technical legal language. You may therefore be somewhat reassured to know that much of this is necessary repetition, for the purposes of this Bill, of very similar language contained in comparable provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, which provide in England and Wales for the confiscation of the assets of persons involved in drug trafficking, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which deals with the confiscation of the proceeds of involvement in other serious crime. Moreover, many of the paragraphs in the text now before us repeat, almost word for word, provisions in the Northern Ireland (Criminal Justice) (Confiscation) Order 1990, which reproduces, for Northern Ireland, the substance of the two Acts which I have just mentioned.
First, I will give some background. The Government are convinced that an effective strategy for the eradication of terrorism in Northern Ireland must be one which includes effective measures for tackling terrorism at its financial roots. Finance is the life blood of terrorism. It is required not simply for the acquisition of weapons, explosive and other terrorist material, some of it very sophisticated and expensive; it also pays the so-called


"volunteers"—those who carry out acts of terrorism on behalf of their organisation. The provisions before us represent an important additional element in what we intend should he a comprehensive range of measures for curbing the financing of terrorism, itself an increasingly diversified activity. There is, I suggest, little doubt that such measures are necessary.
It is well known that terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and those who handle money on their behalf are becoming ever more sophisticated in the means by which they raise and launder funds. Increasingly, persons of substance, including business men and accountants, are involved. It is a particularly worrying feature of the current scene that persons known to be involved with terrorist organisations are involved in the running of what may be regarded as legitimate businesses, with the principal objective of using those businesses to raise or launder funds intended to finance terrorism. There is good reason to believe that some of these people have been involved in such terrorist-financing activity for several years and that they have derived substantial personal benefit from their involvement.
There is in the Government's view—a view which is fully shared by the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a serious risk that, unless effective action is taken soon, persons acting on behalf of terrorist organisations will succeed in establishing a commercial or business infrastructure capable of providing long-term support for terrorism. Perhaps just as much a matter for concern is the risk that, even after a cessation of political violence, such an infrastructure might remain in place, able to sustain a potential for more straightforwardly criminal racketeering. No one would wish to see the creation of a Mafia-style society anywhere in the United Kingdom.
It was against this background, and with the concerns that I have just outlined, that the Government considered how they might use the opportunity created by this Bill to strengthen the law to allow more effective action against terrorist financiers. There were two principal outcomes of this consideration. The first was the new investigative powers for non-police officers, which were introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee, and which are now to be found in clause 47 and schedule 4. An ability to invoke these powers, and to secure the involvement in a financial investigation of persons with the special skills required for this task, should considerably ease the task of the RUC in bringing to justice those involved in such activities.
The second main outcome of our consideration of possible new measures is the scheme for confiscation which is now before us. It addresses a gap in the existing law. As Lord Colville has pointed out in his recent report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, the present law, while providing some machinery for the confiscation of money or property which it can be proved is intended for terrorist use, does not provide any means of depriving "terrorist financiers" of the personal benefit which they derive from their involvement in such activity.
It is a matter of regret to me that the very extensive and detailed work that was necessary before these provisions could be brought forward could not be completed quickly enough to allow them to he considered in Committee. They were, however, tabled at what was the earliest

possible moment after the necessary preparatory work had been done, and I am grateful for the indulgence of the House.
Despite their length and technical complexity, the provisions that make up the new scheme have a simple purpose, and their intention can be expressed in straightforward terms. In essence, they provide that, if a person is convicted in the Crown court of a relevant offence as defined in new clause 7, and if certain conditions have been fulfilled, the court will be required to make a confiscation order. The amount of that order will represent either the value of the person's proceeds from terrorist-related activity during the six years preceding his conviction, or the value of his realisable property—as defined in new clause 8—at the time when proceedings are instituted, whichever is the less. The relevant offences will be the scheduled offences identified in new clause 7 from the commission of which persons are most likely to benefit or which are most closely related to terrorist finance.
There are five matters, identified in new clause 5, about which a court must be satisfied, after it has convicted someone of a relevant offence, before it can make a confiscation order. It must be satisfied first that the defendant has engaged in terrorist-related activities; secondly, that he has benefited from such activities; thirdly, that at some time since the commission of the offence the defendant has had realisable property exceeding £20,000 in value; fourthly, that, in the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted, the defendant has committed another relevant offence on a separate occasion; and, fifthly, that in the particular case, having regard to the circumstances of the offences, the making of the order would not be unfair or oppressive.
Terrorist-related activities are defined in new clause 5(2)(a) as activities that consist of, or involve the commission of, one or more relevant offences, and it will be provided that a person benefits from such activities if he obtains money or other property as a direct or indirect result of such activities.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: As my right hon. Friend has said, the wording of the new clause is somewhat extensive, and difficult for anyone to understand completely. Will one of the conditions to be met before the court can make an order be that the defendant must be given notice that, if he is convicted, an application for such an order will follow? Or will an order be made in any event against anyone who is convicted of such an offence?

Mr. Brooke: As I said a moment ago, the court will be required to bring in a confiscation order if the relevant circumstances obtain.
To assist the court in its task of determining whether the conditions have been fulfilled, the scheme will provide certain assumptions which the court. in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will be obliged to apply. They include the assumption that any property appearing to the court to have been held by the defendant at any time since his conviction, or to have been transferred by him at any time during the six-year period ending when proceedings were instituted, was received by him as a benefit from terrorist-related activities.
As with other confiscation schemes, such as the 1990 Northern Ireland order that I have already mentioned, provision will be made for restraint and charging orders. Those are required to enable assets to be frozen at an early


stage so that they are available to meet any confiscation order that may be made if the defendant is convicted. There will also be provisions creating offences aimed at persons who attempt to avoid confiscation.
The power to make confiscation orders will be available only to the Crown court in Northern Ireland, but the funds subject to such orders may be held elsewhere. For that reason, the scheme will enable provision to be made by Order in Council for the enforcement in England and Wales, Scotland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man of confiscation and restraint—but not charging orders—made in Northern Ireland. The offences provisions in new clauses 11 and 12 will also be capable of application in those separate jurisdictions.
It is intended that restraint orders should normally be granted by the High Court in Northern Ireland. However, it will also be provided that, in certain closely defined circumstances, the power to grant such orders should be exercisable by the Secretary of State. The circumstances will be that the Secretary of State should be satisfied on all the matters on which a High Court judge would have to be satisfied before granting such an order, and that in addition it should appear to him that the disclosure of information that it would be necessary to provide to the judge in support of such an application would be likely either to place someone in danger or to prejudice the capability of members of the RUC, or an authorised inquiry, to investigate offences to which the scheme applies.
I readily acknowledge that these provisions appear severe. Indeed they are severe, which is their intention. They are intended to make people who have deliberately involved themselves in financial activity in support of terrorist organisations, or who may be thinking of so involving themselves, to think twice about that involvement. I remind the House that, in principle, the provisions are no different from or more severe than provisions that Parliament accepted for those who profit from their involvement in drug trafficking. The Government, and I hope the House, regard the deliberate financing of terrorism as an equally heinous activity. That is why I introduced the provisions and am commending them to the House.
The Government amendments are all consequential on the new clauses to which I have referred.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: To some extent, we welcome the new clauses. We question them not because of a lack of good will towards them—we welcome their purpose and hope that they will be speedily and readily effective—but because we believe that they should be part of the general law of the land. I understand that a Home Office committee is considering their provisions, but we would have preferred them to be part of the general law on preventing anybody from benefiting from criminal offences.
It is of the utmost importance that no one should be able to benefit financially from the proceeds of terrorist offences. It is important that such proceeds, whether they be from extortion, illegal rackets or bank robbery, do not find their way into the normal channels and thereby make it appear that they came from legitimate businesses. That is very dangerous because, if the criminal elements—the IRA, some Protestant paramilitaries or the mafia—were to

gain control of our economy, it would make us a very sick society. We cannot allow that, so we welcome the new clauses.
We regard the Bill as proper anit-terrorist legislation. To deal with terrorism, we must get at terrorists' financial routes and cut their ability to finance their enterprises. It is perhaps not a spectacular way of dealing with it. It is not immediately emotive and it will require much hard police work, but in the long term we believe that it is far better than any knee-jerk reaction to terrorist offences.
The Secretary of State has said how the system will work and it seems to contain adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Unless all the conditions are fulfilled, seriatim, no orders can be made against individuals. Again, we welcome that.
We should not wish a legitimate business to go out of existence merely because its financial control was in the hands of terrorists or terrorists' front people. Legitimate jobs may be placed at risk and many innocent people may suffer. One would like to think that there was some way of thinking this matter through so that those points were covered.
Finally, I turn to the tracing orders that will be made for the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Is there any provision that would enable funds to be followed to other Community countries—because of the free movement of capital that now exists within the Community—or to countries outside the European Community where they could be used to buy arms? It would be a great benefit to terrorist organsiations to have apparently legitimate funds in such countries.
With those general caveats, we welcome the provisions. We believe that they will be effective and hope that they will form part of the general law of the land. As this is emergency legislation, let us hope that, when the Home Office inquiry is concluded, we see such provisions as part of general legislation and included in our ordinary Criminal Justice Acts.

Mr. James Molyneaux: It is gratifying for all of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to debate a Bill, not an Order in Council, because the benefits that will flow from that will enable people from all walks of life in Northern Ireland to feel that their views have been expressed both in Committee and on Report.
We hope that we can illustrate the inaccuracy of the advice that is sometimes given to the Secretary of State, to the effect that, if the Government legislated by Bills as a matter of course for Northern Ireland, that would place an intolerable burden on the time of the House. My colleagues on this Bench, and, I hope, all those in the House, will do our best to illustrate that that is not an accurate assessment. We can all help. I make a plea to my colleagues of all parties who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to help by making their contributions crisp, accurate and concise, and not to waffle on at great length on matters which, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with the provisions under discussion.
We are aware of the hurried introduction of some of the new clauses and the thinking behind them. If there had been a longer period for consultation—if the provisions had been tabled, even in outline, on Second Reading or earlier in Committee—we would all have had the benefit of receiving some input from interested bodies and


experienced persons in Northern Ireland. We might then have been able to assist the Secretary of State and his colleagues to improve the legislation still further.
I find it difficult to understand why we appear to have been caught on the hop. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reminded the Committee—I put it on the record now—that some of us had read in The Sunday Times as far back as 21 October 1990 that the Northern Ireland Office had it in mind to introduce legislation on this subject akin to what applies in the United States of America. However, there appears to be a curious dichotomy in the Government's thinking as a unit. Not all Departments in Whitehall seem to be alive to the possibilities of the legislation and the potential effectiveness of clauses such as those which have now been introduced. All honour to the Secretary of State and his colleagues for perhaps defying the advice that they have received from certain other quarters, to the effect that they should take their time and put off this matter until after a general election. That would not have been desirable.
I find it curious that we have not been given more time, but I appreciate the problems and the fact that discussions probably took place in Government at various levels, so I shall not press that point too far today.
My colleagues and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State seemed to say that he was providing for the application of certain provisions to Great Britain by order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being precise because, like his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I find it difficult to take all these matters in at one bite. Nevertheless, if that is what the Government have in mind, it would be highly desirable. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I go further and suggest that thought should be given to a wider application, where possible, to overseas finance houses if co-operation could be secured.
At various stages of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann has made pleas for greater precision in drafting. Having listened to the Secretary of State, I hope that he will not close his mind to further suggestions about how precision could be attained. In various respects, the new clauses represent a considerable improvement on the outline made available in Committee, but I hope that, in our examination of the new clauses and amendments, we can give further help to the Secretary of State to achieve greater precision.
I assume that, even when Royal Assent has been obtained, the Secretary of State and his colleagues will pay heed to expert advice and opinion—I use those words deliberately—about closing loopholes which terrorist godfathers, like tax dodgers, will inevitably discover in the legislation. I assure the Secretary of State and his colleagues of the co-operation of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland and their representatives in the House, first, on the passage of the remaining stages of the Bill and, secondly, in helping him to scrutinise the effectiveness of the legislation when it is applied to doing something significant to contain terrorists, wherever they may be found.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Signals from the Labour Front Bench were trying to attack me through the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but they should remember that example is better than precept.
Of course hon. Members from Northern Ireland welcome the fact that we are discussing a Bill in the House. We should not be over-enthusiastic, because I do not think that the Government are in any way converted to the view that all legislation for Northern Ireland should be done through Bills. This legislation is being done by Bill because of certain regulations connected with it. However, I do not think that the Government have been down a Damascus road and have been persuaded that the House should legislate for Northern Ireland in the same way as it legislates for other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that I did not give the impression that it was a fait accompli. Is my hon. Friend prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps we will all travel hopefully.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have my doubts about the Government, so I can give them the benefit of the doubt at all times.
I regret that, when the Government introduce a Bill, we have all these changes and additions. It would be easier for Northern Ireland Members to discuss a measure on Second Reading if they knew the full content of the Government's mind. Of course, the Government may not know the content of their own mind, and may therefore be in difficulty about delivering it earlier.
The Government are trying to do what needs to be done. Money should be clawed back immediately from anyone who benefits financially from terrorist activity. Everyone is in full agreement on that. I have tried to be concise.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: For once, I shall try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Again, I am disappointed that this new legislation has been introduced in the manner in which it has. The Minister of State was good enough to consult members of the parties from the north of Ireland in the concluding phase of drawing up the legislation, but we now have 10 new clauses, a complete new schedule and almost a complete new Bill on Report. It may be easy for people with legal expertise to deal with such legislation, but those of us who are not so qualified find great difficulty with it. It is not fair to hon. Members to introduce what is essentially almost a new Bill at this stage, because the Bill is not open to the investigation and examination that is required.
Another important factor is that, if the changes to the Bill had been dealt with in Committee, we would have a much clearer idea of the import, impact and effectiveness of the Bill. I have sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). One of the difficulties with emergency legislation—I made this point on Monday—is that we end up with a patchwork quilt. The Government have drawn a little from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, a little from the prevention of terrorism Act, a little from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a little from the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and a little from something else, and have ended up with a panoply of measures which is like a patchwork quilt, with no central unity. It is almost impossible to deal with such a measure as a single piece of legislation. That is what has happened, and that is why the changes have been made so late.
The Bill seeks to take provisions from the ordinary law, to put them into emergency legislation and to make them apply to proscribed organisations and scheduled offences. The patchwork quilt approach has continued. It does not seem the right way to deal with the matter.
I regard wealth or money which is obtained through violence or as a result of violent activity as nothing less than blood money. [Interruption.] I am not terribly sure why the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has given me a glass of water. Is there a Freudian message within it, or is there something stronger?

Mr. McNamara: It was what the doctor ordered for the hon. Gentleman's throat, and it is suitable for Lent.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for it. I know that, when it comes to that which goes into a glass, he is an expert on the implications of Lent.
Money earned as a result of violence is simply blood money. I and everyone else who lives in the north of Ireland have seen the way in which some people have become wealthy on the back of the sufferings of others, so no one would question the need for legislation to deal with it. It is a difficult area of operation, and the problem has been with us for several years. The reason why it became so widespread and so much a part of the sub-culture of the north of Ireland was that successive Governments were not willing enough to get to grips with it. It is on record in the House through the years that organisations such as the Housing Executive, which is charged with providing housing in the north of Ireland, have paid out millions upon millions of pounds—in protection money and other forms of racketeering. Part of the problem was a reluctance to come to grips with it, because it was a conduit for intelligence. That is a reality which people may not like to hear, but it is one of the difficulties. As a consequence, racketeering has become part of the sub-culture of the north of Ireland. That is why it has reached the stage that it has.
I have reservations about certain elements of the new clauses. I am worried about the families of those who may come under scrutiny. I am fairly certain that in some cases a woman has no control whatsoever over the activities of her husband. Such a woman might find that her home was subject to confiscation. In other words, a woman and her children could lose their home through no fault of their own. I am not sure that such sensitive matters are dealt with clearly. Let us hope that the Secretary of State will be able to clarify the situation.
My other fundamental reservation concerns the fact that, once again, the onus of proof is on the suspect. Throughout these new clauses, the suspect is required to prove his innocence. That represents not just weak law but also a weak approach to law.
4.30 pm
The provision concerning compensation is particularly ambiguous. Compensation may be paid if the High Court decides that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence. Surely the provision must be made much more precise. Is not proof of innocence sufficient to establish entitlement to compensation under this type of legislation? It seems to me that there is a high degree of subjectivity in the definition of serious default by

the High Court. Once a person has been absolved, he should be entitled, without this subjective element, to compensation. The provision would substantially weaken the subject's position. As this is emergency legislation, we should be especially concerned about the protection written into it. It is not enough to provide for the punitive element.
I repeat that there is a need for this type of legislation. It is not confined to proscribed organisations. Indeed, some of the most serious racketeering in the north of Ireland is indulged in by an organisation that some people deem no longer to exist. Those of us who live there know how potent it still is. We know how much money it puts through its hands every year—and its members through their pockets. We know that it works very closely with what many people now regard as a legitimate political party. The fact that it is not proscribed shows the difficulties that could be faced in the application of the law to such racketeering. There are weaknesses in the new clauses. We must always look for means of protecting accused people.

Mr. James Kilfedder: This new legislation manifests the determination of the Government and of the people of Northern Ireland not to let up, even for a moment, in the attempt to throttle the evil men—on whichever side of the divide—who parade themselves as patriots. The legislation can grab hold of what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to as the blood money which has been screwed out of the people of Northern Ireland by the terrorists, in particular by the Provisional IRA.
I have some reservations about the legislation. As the Secretary of State said, it is based on legislation dealing with drugs in England. The courts have not been determined in grabbing hold of all the money that drug dealers have accumulated. They have interpreted the laws extremely strictly and dealt kindly with the relations of the defendants in the dock. The laws should be tougher. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, we must be able to follow funds that go to other parts of the world—for example, the tax havens in the West Indies.
The IRA is extremely astute at manipulating money. Those funds have been and are being accumulated for the express purpose of terrorism, but the terrorists also have in mind the day when peace will come—as it surely must—to Northern Ireland and put the money away for their retirement. It is said, although I cannot produce any proof, that IRA funds have been used to buy property in my constituency. Some people act as front men for the terrorists.
I only hope that, when the legislation is enacted, it will be fully implemented, with the greatest determination. As the Secretary of State said, money is the life blood of the terrorist. We must cut off that money and, in so doing, we shall help bring down the evil men who have haunted Northern Ireland for more than 20 years, and whose day of reckoning has come.

Mr. William Ross: The legislation, which was introduced late in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, is full of good intention. However, I have been in the House for 17 years and have lived through the problems and troubles of Northern Ireland since the day they began, and I have seen much


legislation pass through the House that was full of good intentions. But good intentions are not enough; the practical consequences of those good intentions are what count. If the Secretary of State thinks back on all the legislation brought before the House that was supposed to produce good consequences, but which gave birth to nothing of the sort, I have no doubt that he will share my reservations about the legislation before us.
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well, because he referred to it, that the legislation is based on the powers contained in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 How much money, and on how many occasions, and how much property has been seized as a result of the application of that Act against people committing drug offences? Similar powers, relating to the seizure of bank accounts, were contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989: how many bank accounts have since been seized?
If the Secretary of State asks us to pass such legislation, surely he should tell us the practical consequences of earlier, similar legislation, but he did not do so. The House has a right to hear the answers to those questions and to know whether similar legislation has been effective. I fear that it is not effective in those two situations. Whenever he says that business men and accountants are now involved in these matters, he inadvertently proves to the House and to the country that all this talk about mindless violence committed by members of the IRA is utter nonsense. The IRA and its fellow travellers are not engaged in mindless violence. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that I, for one, have never accepted the belief that they were mindless thugs. They are directed by clever, efficient and ruthless people. By telling the House that business men and accountants are now involved, the Secretary of State has given us proof positive that these organisations—not only but principally the IRA—have got the thing down to a fine art.
These people are being well advised by able people. Therefore, a botched job will be no good. It will only bring the law being formulated against them into grave disrepute. That does no good to anyone: in fact, it makes the matter a great deal worse. Therefore, I hope that, when the Secretary of State, his colleagues and his advisers were dreaming up these new clauses, they asked themselves how the provisions could be circumvented. As soon as they appeared, the IRA and other terrorist organisations had their boys on the ball trying to figure out ways round them.
I have no doubt that, when the Secretary of State and the police proceed against the first targets that they have in mind, they will find that those people have discovered ways round the new law. They will have found the loopholes and expanded them until an elephant, never mind a mouse, can get through. This is a serious issue, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his advisers, and the police officers and accountants who have to investigate such matters, have put themselves into the minds of terrorist organisations, have tried to, discover the loopholes, and as a result have created nets-to ensure that those people are caught in one way or another.
The hon. .Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the situation in the building trades in Northern Ireland. That has been an open scandal for more years than any of us cares to remember. The consequence is that, whenever a legitimate builder looks for work in Northern Ireland, he is confronted with two problems. The first is that many believe that building firms are under

the control of these evil organisations. If even one tenth of what we hear is to be believed, firms have been paying large sums to terrorist organisations on every building contract that has been put through in an area ruled by such an organisation.
The second problem is partly the result of the DHSS in Northern Ireland still falling down on its job. We hear tales from the small builders of how they can no longer compete because these fellows are doing the double, working for £20 a day. Will the DHSS be called in to close that aspect of the building trade? That concerns every legitimate builder in Northern Ireland.
New clause 5 says that the value of the realisable property has to exceed £20,000. I should like an explanation of that figure. Am I to take it from that that persons can acquire a maximum of £20,000 from terrorist organisations or activities before the legislation catches them? Many people would like £20,000 if they thought that they could get it without any danger to themselves. It might be a powerful incentive to some of these folk to go ahead. If that is so, can we close that loophole?
The third line of new clause 5 says:
whether before or after the coming into force of this Part".
That implies retrospective legislation. Nobody likes that but the fact that it is necessary in this case shows that the Government are a minimum of six years late in introducing this measure.

Mr. Mallon: Twelve.

Mr. Ross: I think that it is rather more than 12, but we shall only try to catch the latter half of the 12, even if that is incorrect.
I appreciate the need for retrospection in this case, but I regret that it is needed, because it is not the sort of Bill that any hon. Member would like to accept or willingly pass. Retrospective law is generally bad law, and I do not like it. However, in this case it is necessary.
4.45 pm
I also noted that the individual who is convicted cannot be caught by these provisions for only one proven offence. He has to be convicted of more than one. I should like the Secretary of State to comment on that. The implication is that we are trying to catch not the one-off offender, but the committed, continuing offender. If that is so, I should welcome it.
New clause 14 speaks of "property wherever situated". As has already been said, property owned by these organisations, and income-producing property at that, can be anywhere—the United States, Canada, the Irish Republic or England. I can understand that the Secretary of State is referring to property in Northern Ireland and probably in the United Kingdom and adjacent British Isles. However, is he saying that he will try to find out the situation in foreign states such as the Irish Republic? If he is not, here is the first great gaping hole. We need to have that cleared up. I do not believe that the IRA has invested all its ill-gotten gains in Northern Ireland. A lot of it is invested elsewhere, where it is safe.
The new clause seems to be aimed at individuals who have benefited, but we are not dealing with terrorists as individuals. Individuals get caught, but they are only part and parcel of the terrorist machine. I am curious about what consideration has been given to how we can get at the whole machine. Although the person who has been caught may have benefited, he is only a tiny part of the machine.


How about the money held by the organisation that owns the property and employs the individual, perhaps as a consultant, a worker, a director or a simple, straightforward employee or alleged employee? These matters need to be addressed, because these organisations are super-mafias.
I wonder whether the powers that the Government have taken unto themselves are sufficient, draconian though they are. Will they hurt these organisations where it matters—in their pockets? That is where we want to hurt them. We do not want to attack the minor individual who has made a small profit, take the money off him and leave the whole organisation with its property and money and resulting income intact.
I am curious to know whether, if one of these individuals has been paid as an employee and has benefited over the past six years to the tune of £10,000 or £12,000 a year, we will tell him that he will have to pay such wages back. What will be the practical consequences of such a move? The person does not have money in the bank, because he was paid the money and has spent it on living. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to recover that money.
I welcome the fact that any compensation that the convicted individual has to make will have priority over any other claim. I am happy to see that, because those who have suffered injury and may be able to claim compensation from the individual who has committed the offence will be protected, and their interests will be safeguarded. It is unusual that the individual rather than the Crown will be first in line for the money. If that policy were applied generally, many people in the business world would be happy to see the tax man's demands. I do not think that the Secretary of State will ever convince the Chancellor to adopt that approach to debts.
Under new clause 6(8), the courts will have to state the reasons for their actions. I am curious about whether that is necessary, because we may create a precedent which, instead of being helpful, turns out to be an albatross. Perhaps the Secretary of State and his advisers would like to consider that measure again. If the right hon. Gentleman puts himself into the position of the courts or the terrorists, he may think of some of the possible problems.
You will have gathered from my comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not think that this is a good curate's egg overall. It looks good. No doubt the hen's intention in laying it was good. It is a pity that the egg was kept in the nest for six or seven years too long and went bad. However, good intentions are welcome. We hope that, with increasing knowledge of the capacity of the wicked organisations at which the Bill is aimed, the Government will understand that this is a fair beginning but is not yet a good or successful end.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I support and welcome the Bill, which we hope will prevent racketeers from using normal businesses to make money for terrorist purposes. As a former plumbing contractor and one who worked in the construction industry, I have taken great exception to the threats against business people and tradesmen in the building industry and the protectionism practised by terrorist groups and racketeers.
Many jobs have been lost because of changes in certain areas of Northern Ireland. Many tradesmen and other workers in the construction industry are on the dole

because threats mean that they cannot work in certain places because of threats. Sadly, people who went to work in such places were murdered because they came from a different area. It is disgraceful that a person who is trying to earn money for his family should be treated in that way.
The threats are made by cowards, not by people who express their views to workers. They are made by telephone calls and by "a word to the wise". That is absolutely disgraceful. Unfortunately, the cowards are getting away with it. It is a tragedy that people who wish to work cannot do so. If the Bill has any effect on such actions, I should very much welcome it on behalf of those who work in the construction industry. Attempts are made to extract money from people so that they can work in particular areas—and, sadly, workers are paying it. That is another tragedy.
The Bill is the other side of the coin from the terrorists who prevent workmen from going to certain areas or certain camps to carry out their building trade. Workmen are murdered to prevent them from doing their work. Firms are intimidated. I have been sadly disappointed by certain firms that backed down when threatened. For years, workers who have travelled into and out of these areas have been intimidated and threatened but have gone to work; but as soon as some firms are threatened or intimidated, everyone loses his job. I have been sadly disappointed that business people should do that.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend will be aware that, whenever a firm is forced out because of such activity, it can be replaced by a firm whose workers will comply with the terrorists' demands.

Mr. Forsythe: Unfortunately, that seems to be the case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is there not a Government failure in providing proper protection for those firms? I am sure that the hon. Member would not like to castigate a firm which has been seriously threatened and which, when it asks for protection, is told by the police that they cannot do much to help. I am sure that such firms cannot carry on in view of a threat against not only the business people but all the workers, as recently happened in Ballymena in my constituency.

Mr. Forsythe: I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I was coming to that point. It is sad that firms are placed in that position and that they feel that they can no longer depend on security measures to look after them and their workers.
In such circumstances, workers are put on the dole. The fellow travellers of those who carry out the threats and murders then wring their hands in despair about unemployment in Northern Ireland. The hypocrisy of such actions is beyond belief and is treated by the people of Northern Ireland with the contempt that it deserves.
I am sure that the racketeers and the terrorists will not listen to anything that I say or, indeed, to what the House says, but they are not wanted by people in any area in Northern Ireland. They should let the rest of us again have the quality of life that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. I plead with the Government to enforce the laws.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Member not find it strange that, on numerous occasions in my constituency, the IRA has set off large bombs which have destroyed many premises, yet the first people on the scene to board up and replace windows happen to be from


the same grouping, from Sinn Fein or the IRA? The Government are ready to fill its coffers with payment for doing those jobs.

Mr. Forsythe: Sadly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that has happened on a number of occasions.

Mr. Mallon: It would be entirely wrong to give the impression that everyone working in the building trade in the north of Ireland is, first, a member of that nationalist community and, by implication, a member or a supporter of Sinn Fein or the IRA. The real racketeering in the building trade is organised by the loyalist paramilitary groups, and hon. Members who represent Belfast know that. They also know that the people who have been killed on building sites because of racketeering are, by and large, Catholics who have come to those sites from other areas.
5 pm
The consensus that we should seek to achieve should mean that anyone who runs any racket is guilty and should be found guilty before the law. We should not indulge in the type of snide remarks that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has introduced into the debate.

Mr. Forsythe: I made my position clear at the beginning of my speech.

Rev. William McCrea: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would have the honesty to condemn the despicable actions that have often occurred in my constituency. Whenever the IRA blows up a town and destroys properties owned by people right across the community, IRA personnel then come in under disguise as contractors, and they lift the coffers from the Northern Ireland Office. That is a despicable situation and it should be condemned by everyone in the House.

Mr. Forsythe: I am sure that hon. Members heard what the two hon. Gentlemen said and they will draw their own conclusions. I made it clear at the beginning of my speech how disgraceful I thought it was that building trade workers were not allowed to go about their business without intimidation and threats. I stand by that.

Mr. Mallon: All building trade workers.

Mr. Forsythe: Yes, all. I was one myself, and I support them fully.
If the Government intend to introduce new legislation, I plead with them to ensure that it is implemented for the good of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to make it clear at the outset that I support the new clause and the others grouped with it. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, however, I believe that they should have been tabled much earlier so that more detailed consideration could have been given to them.
When considering this type of legislation one must consider the overview and ask whether such measures are necessary in the present circumstances. The present circumstances in Northern Ireland are such that it is clear that further measures are necessary to curtail the activities and membership of terrorist organisations.
One has only to consider the actions of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland in the past 48 hours to appreciate that it is attempting to take away people's livelihoods. In

my constituency, Mountpottinger police station was attacked. The area surrounding that police station is largely Roman Catholic and a number of properties were affected by the attack which, once again, the IRA got wrong. A large and vital area of industry in east Belfast is Short's. The Provisional IRA has also damaged that company—it has not damaged the structure of the building so much as the credibility of the firm. The Provisional IRA is attempting to undermine that firm and its attempts will be condemned by everyone in the House. Such damage affects the employment of many people and casts aspersions on many. The Provisional IRA may send one person out to infiltrate an organisation and, as a result, that person may cause damage. However, the finger of suspicion is pointed at many when all but a few are not entitled to be viewed with such suspicion.
The Provisional IRA is the master of taking away the livelihoods and finances of others. If I have any criticism of the new clause, it is that it does not go far enough. I cannot see the logic behind simply going for the terrorist who has been involved in profiting from acts of terrorism. There are those terrorists who cause loss to others by their terrorism but who live very nicely thank you in Northern Ireland.
A bomber from the Provisional IRA or any other paramilitary organisation may cause damage worth £100,000 to a public house in Northern Ireland. That person may be found guilty of that terrorist crime and convicted, and the police may have evidence to prove that that individual owns property to the value of more than £100,000. Why should the state compensate the person who has lost his public house when the person who carried out that damage has goods to that value and more? I urge the Secretary of State to consider taking away benefit, by whatever means it may have been acquired, from the terrorist who is prepared to cause damage and loss in society and the public purse. Such confiscation is entirely justified.
I have some scepticism about the general premise advanced by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has argued that the new clause represents a major way in which to deal with terrorism. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that the new clause deals with the problem on the periphery and that we should be cautious about how advantageous the new clause turns out to be.
If the powers in the new clause strike at the pockets of the terrorists, it will do good, but I do not believe for a moment that touching the finances of the godfather of terrorism or other terrorists will effectively deal with terrorism. The new clause deals with the problem on the periphery; there is no alternative to strong, resolute military activity against terrorists.
Touching the finances of the terrorist will have a marginal effect. Political stability in Northern Ireland will have a marginal effect on terrorism, but I believe that it would have a greater impact on terrorism than touching the terrorists' finances. To defeat terrorism one must take strong, resolute military action against the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers. No one who supports the new clause should think for one moment that we have cracked the problem and that we have the means to defeat the IRA. At best, we have a marginal advantage on the previous legislation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I was sorry that at one stage in the debate it sounded as though we were entering into a squabble about something on which we all basically agree, but perhaps we have passed that stage now.
One can level criticism at the Government for the procedural avenues on which they have decided. It is a pity that we have before us 22 pages of amendments, including a huge schedule, all of which could readily have been included in the original Bill and debated properly on Second Reading. Hon. Members who disagree with the Government amendments and new clauses could have tabled amendments to them. There are five Opposition parties in the House with the resources to do that. However, Report stage is not the same as Second Reading, after which a Bill goes to Committee for detailed scrutiny, at which point amendments can be tabled. Hon. Members who do not have the resources of political organisations are affected by this. There are better opportunities to introduce amendments in that way than if the Government suddenly introduce a bundle of proposals almost like a new Bill.
I do not know why the Government have introduced so many new proposals at this late stage. The proposals could form a separate piece of legislation rather than being included in the Bill, and thus allow the usual processes of proper scrutiny of a measure which in principle might be widely supported. Such legislation could have been fine-tuned and improved.
The Bill seeks to tackle the laundering of money from criminal to legitimate areas. Much of that money is obtained by dubious practices, such as theft and exploitation. Funds collected from overseas are also fed to paramilitary organisations and some of those funds finish up in the kind of businesses that hon. Members have described. People need to be told how money collected in America finishes up with the IRA and how it is used. The people who carry the collecting tins say, "It is for our boys." We must spell out what happens to the boys and girls and the adults of Northern Ireland as a result of paramilitary activity.
Yesterday representatives from a group called Families Against Intimidation and Terror were present in a Committee Room. The group was set up by Nancy Gracey in Downpatrick following the knee-capping of her son, who had been involved in some trouble on a bus. The bus passengers were called together by the IRA which meted out its dubious method of justice. Nancy Gracey's son was taken out and knee-capped. Even if he had been guilty of some crime, there was no ground for such punishment. The fracas was about someone who had been in the IRA and had been in prison.
Nancy Gracey was so incensed by what happened that she made a brave stand and the result was an organisation which operates in both Protestant and Catholic areas and involves people suffering at the hands of their own sectarian organisations. The situation has become worse and the proposed legislation should have been introduced earlier. Organisations continue to grow and develop. Extreme organisations, such as the Baath party, the Nazis and Stalinists attract to themselves all sorts of thuggery because they employ methods which ignore law and order and the normal checks and balances in a democratic system. That leads to massive exploitation because such organisations have the freedom to act unlawfully.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman spoke about funds collected in the United States. Has he any observations on the amount of money which the supposedly defunct Official IRA raises on the west coast of the United States and launders back to the north of Ireland every year? It is interesting to note how an organisation that is supposed to be defunct operates probably the biggest international scam of the lot.

Mr. Barnes: Once again we seem to be on the verge of confrontation, which is inevitable when we discuss Irish issues. My knowledge of the Official IRA is in terms of its successor bodies and the developments which led to the establishment of the Workers party. That shows that the democratic process offers opportunities and hope to people and can help to transform the situation. That needs to be taken into account when people consider what action to take about Sinn Fein and whether it should be banned in the same way as the IRA. We might finish up with the same people wearing a different hat. However, the attractions of having to use the ballot box to achieve political change can help to transform organisations. The changes that have taken place are welcome, although the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) may wish to stress problems that have arisen.
The measure is essentially directed at banned paramilitary organisations and deals with the misuse of their funds for further exploitation. Such organisations engage in the legitimate collection of money and use it to build up or retain their strength. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that such a measure was welcome. He also said that it was by no means the main method of dealing with terrorism. I agree. But terrorism cannot be overcome only by massive police and military action to search out and remove terrorism at every stage. Such actions tend to become part of a pattern. The way forward is the long-haul solution which seeks to undermine the very conditions which lead to terrorism. The economic and social agenda, such as Monday's debate on the Northern Ireland (Appropriation) Order, which is equivalent to the Budget, is important and needs to be seen in the context of other issues.
The other avenue is the democratic one of people coming together and standing up for the sort of society that they wish to see. Nancy Gracey's organisation has stood up and campaigned and organised in Downpatrick to such an extent that the official organiser for the IRA has moved out of the area. The argument is being won by people who put forward alternative solutions.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to the debate. I shall allude first, because it has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, to the delay in bringing forward the legislation. I understand the feelings of the House. I have thanked the House for its indulgence and, in the context of the language that has been used in the debate, I thank the House for its patience and understanding.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was understanding of some of the circumstances which might have given rise to the delay. It is better that the legislation should have come forward than that it should be delayed further, but I recognise the difficulties in


which the Government have placed the House and I appreciate the understanding that has been shown towards us.
A number of points have been made and I will do my best to respond to them. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), in welcoming the general principles of the legislation on behalf of the Opposition, asked why the new provisions could not be part of general law. The new provisions rely on the concept of scheduled offences and are therefore unique to Northern Ireland. They cannot be applied in England and Wales where there are no scheduled offences. They are also designed to deal with a particular situation in Northern Ireland. However, I understand the sentiment which underlay the hon. Gentleman's question and I am grateful to him for his tribute to the police for their hard and painstaking work.
The hon. Gentleman asked about legitimate businesses. A legitimate business, properly so called, has nothing to fear from these provisions, but somebody who provides a legitimate service but who also helps terrorists will be vulnerable under the legislation. The hon. Gentleman asked a question which was also raised subsequently about a move into Europe and overseas. That is not possible under the present law, but it is not impossible in the longer run. We might be able to take powers to enter into reciprocal enforcement arrangements. That is a proper matter to have been raised and it is something which we would seek to pursue.
I expressed my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley for his understanding and I assure him that, with regard to what he said about loopholes and the provision of expert advice and opinion, we shall welcome all the help that we can get to obtain the maximum benefit from the legislation and to prevent loopholes occurring.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had a small internal debate about the Government's practice in the legislative procedures in the House. I noted that the phrase "the benefit of the doubt" crept into the debate. That phrase derives much from the game of cricket. I apologise if I have in any way polluted Northern Ireland debate by introducing such metaphors. My experience is that one is given out as often as one is given not out and that they balance out over the years. I hope that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley will feel that his optimism was more justified than the scepticism of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked me a series of questions. It is always a source of pleasure to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) should have had an ancestor who was a Member for Newry and that I should have had an ancestor who was a Member for Armagh. We watch the hon. Gentleman's progress with care and we take perhaps greater interest in his development than that of any other Northern Ireland Member.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for his felicitations. Can he make any observation on the fact that his noble antecedent represented one part of Newry and Armagh and that of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) represented the other part, while I have to represent both on my own?

Mr. Brooke: Ever since the hon. Member entered the House I have much admired his productivity.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the onus of proof. The onus remains on the Crown throughout to prove all the matters set out in new clause 5. Assumptions are provided to assist the Crown in establishing some of these matters, but all those assumptions can be rebutted by a defendant on the lowest civil standard of proof—the balance of probability.
The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation. The provision in the schedule is in exactly the same form as appears in the other compensation schemes such as those in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act and the prevention of terrorism Act, which have apparently worked without difficulty. The fact that the provisions are broadly paralleled and mirrored in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act will, I hope, help the House in its consideration.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the position of children and spouses. All that can be confiscated are the proceeds of terrorist-related activities. I think that he cited the house. If the house represents the proceeds of such activities, it is right that it should be confiscated. However, if the defendant can show that, on the balance of probabilities, the house was come by legitimately, it cannot be the subject of an order.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) expressed the expectation that peace would come and in so doing endorsed the legislation, and I am grateful to him.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) asked me a question relating to the amounts secured under earlier legislation. The Home Office started collecting statistics on restraint orders issued under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act in 1989, but the returns received were so unreliable that it was not felt safe to quote the figures. Customs and Excise does not collect figures and there is no obvious evidence from, for example, bank evidence to Select Committees, that the banks have any figures.
However, against that background, statistics are available for confiscation orders under the Act—a matter which I think also underlay the hon. Gentleman's question. That is the stage that comes after restraint orders. Statistics are as yet available only for England and Wales where, in 1987, 200 offenders were ordered to pay £1·2 million on confiscation orders. That was the year after the Act came into force. In 1988, 540 offenders were ordered to pay £8·1 million and in 1989, 800 offenders were ordered to pay £7·8 million. Therefore, a significant sum of money is coming into the public coffers as a result of the legislation.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we had not introduced legislation before.

Mr. William Ross: What does the right hon. Gentleman say about sums of money recovered under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind me that he raised that question. No restraint or forfeiture orders have yet been made in Northern Ireland under that Act, but I remind the House of what I said earlier. As Lord Colville pointed out in his recent report on that Act, the present law, while providing some machinery for the confiscation of money or property which it can be proved is intended for terrorist use, does not prevent any means of


depriving terrorist financiers of the personal benefit which they derive from their involvement in such activity. That gap is filled by this legislation.
The hon. Gentleman was free with criticism of the legislation. I did not catch in his speech much detail of the alternative legislation that he would like to see against the problem which I think we all acknowledge exists. I agree with what he said about mindless violence. There is no question but that manipulative skills of a high order are employed within the terrorist movement, and it is an index of the purpose of the legislation that it is being directed against just such skills. The hon. Gentleman saw that point and I can confirm that it is true. He will recall the 62 establishments which were raided simultaneously in the latter part of last year on warrants signed by myself for the collection of documentation which was then taken away for analysis.
The hon. Gentleman asked about builders, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsyth). I recognise that that is not specifically contained in the legislation except as a side-wind. It is a complex matter, because one must be certain to introduce powers which, although they will defeat terrorists, do not impose impossible burdens on honest business men throughout the Province. The Government are continuing to pursue that matter, and are determined to bear down on those sources of finance.

Mr. William Ross: I made specific reference to persons on the double. Will the Government make a serious attempt to deal with that problem—even in the case of individual houses, where Housing Executive grants are paid?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. The Government are determined to bear down on all sources of finance. Today, we are adding to our armoury a contribution to that process.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked why there should be a £20,000 cut-off. The scheme is deliberately targeted at persons who make a practice of, or living from, financing terrorism—in other words, the major players—and to ensure that a requirement on the courts should not be imposed when someone is convicted of a minor, albeit relevant, offence but who has received no benefit or hardly any benefit personally from his actions. Any cut-off point is arbitrary, but a figure of £20,000 seems about right. It can be varied by order, and we would be perfectly happy to return to that question. The hon. Gentleman, in his remarks about the commissioning of more than one offence, correctly interpreted the Government's intentions.
A confiscation order will apply to property anywhere in the world. If the prosecution can establish that the defendant has realisable property in Australia, for example, it will be included in the order. If the defendant does not pay, he will be sentenced to imprisonment in default of not having done so. The location of the asset is not significant.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked whether the scheme will apply to property owned by a terrorist organisation. It does not, but such property is

already liable to forfeiture under schedule 7 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East for a most agreeable culminating phrase, when he commented that the clauses are not a good curate's egg overall. I shall treasure that phrase, and whenever I quote it I will give the hon. Gentleman the credit for having originally uttered it.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke of the measures as being on the periphery, and referred to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East about the particular persons to whom the legislation is addressed. I repeat that terrorism will be brought to an end by exercising pressure on terrorists across the whole front. I am the first to acknowledge that the aspect dealt with by clause 5 is not a decisive element, but it is much better to exercise pressure across the whole front so that the terrorist is made to realise that there is no way he can win.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) argued, perfectly properly, for a doctrine of perfection. As I said earlier, I should have been delighted if these measures could have been introduced on Second Reading. However, the best can be the enemy of the good, and it was desirable to bring forward this measure only when it was ready. I appreciate the understanding that the House has shown in that regard.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Secretary of State prepared to take from a terrorist who was involved in the destruction of property a sum equal to its value?

Mr. Brooke: We have been examining that aspect, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION (CONFISCATION ORDERS)

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a confiscation order shall be made by the court before sentencing or otherwise dealing with the defendant for the offence or offences in respect of which he is before the court.

(2) If a court considers that it requires further information before making a confiscation order against a defendant, it may, subject to subsection (3) below, postpone making such an order for a period not exceeding six months after the date of conviction for the purpose of enabling that information to be obtained; but, without prejudice to Article 11 of the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, the court may notwithstanding such postponement proceed to sentence or to otherwise deal with the defendant in respect of the conviction.

(3) If during the period of postponement notice of appeal or of application for leave to appeal is given under section 16(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 the court may, on the application of the prosecution, extend that period to a date up to three months after the date of the determination of the appeal.

(4) A court shall not impose any fine or make an order such as is mentioned in subsection (5)(b) or (c) below before a confiscation order is made.

(5) Where a court makes a confiscation order against a defendant in any proceedings, the court shall, in respect of any offence of which he is convicted in those proceedings, take account of the order before—

(a) imposing any fine on him; or
(b) making any order involving any payment by him, other than an order under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (compensation orders); or
(c) making any order under Article 7 of that Order (deprivation orders),
but subject to that shall leave the order out of account in determining the appropriate sentence or other manner of dealing with him.

(6) No statutory provision restricting the power of a court dealing with an offender in a particular way from dealing with him also in any other way shall by reason only of the making of a confiscation order restrict the court from dealing with an offender in any way it considers appropriate in respect of a relevant offence.

(7) Where—

(a) a court makes both a confiscation order and an order for the payment of compensation under Article 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 against the same person in the same proceedings; and
(b) it appears to the court that he will not have sufficient means to satisfy both the orders in full,
it shall direct that so much of the compensation as will not in its opinion be recoverable because of the insufficiency of his means shall be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order.

(8) Where a court decides not to make a confiscation order against a defendant convicted by it of a relevant offence the court shall state its reasons for that decision.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

RELEVANT OFFENCES

'.—(1) In this Part of this Act "relevant offence" means—

(a) a scheduled offence falling within paragraph 12(a), 20(b), (c) or (e) or 21(aa), (h), (ha), (hb), (j) or (k) of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act; and
(b) an offence which by virtue of Part II of that Schedule is to be treated as if it were such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(2) In so far as this Part of this Act applies in relation to a relevant offence committed before the coming into force of this Act "relevant offence" also means—

(a) a scheduled offence within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 falling within paragraph 13(a) or 16(b) or (c) of Part I of Schedule 4 to that Act; and
(b) an offence which by virtue of Part II of that Schedule was to be treated as if it were such an offence as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(3) An order under section 1(3) above amending Schedule 1 to this Act may also amend subsection (1) above.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

REALISABLE PROPERTY, VALUE AND GIFTS

'.—(1) In this Part of this Act "realisable property" means, subject to subsection (2) below—

(a) any property held by the defendant; and
(b) any property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Part of this Act.

(2) Property is not realisable property if an order under—

(a) Article 7 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (deprivation orders);
(b) section 27 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (forfeiture orders); or
(c) section 13(2), (3) or (4) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (forfeiture orders),
is in force in respect of the property.

(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the amount that might be realised at the time a confiscation order is made is—

(a) the total of the values at that time of all the realisable property held by the defendant, less
(b) where there are obligations having priority at that time, the total amounts payable in pursuance of such obligations,
together with the total of the values at that time of all gifts caught by this Part of this Act.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, an obligation has priority at any time if it is an obligation of the defendant to—

(a) pay an amount due in respect of a fine, or other order of a court, imposed or made on conviction of an offence, where the fine was imposed or order made before the confiscation order; or
(b) pay any sum which would be included among the preferential debts (within the meaning given by Article 346 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989) in the defendant's bankruptcy commencing on the date of the confiscation order or winding up under an order of the court made on that date.

(5) Subject to the following provisions of this section, for the purposes of this Part of this Act the value of property (other than cash) in relation to any person holding the property—

(a) where any other person holds an interest in the property, is—

(i) the market value of the first-mentioned person's beneficial interest in the property, less
(ii) the amount required to discharge any incumbrance (other than a charging order) on that interest; and
(b) in any other case, is its market value.

(6) Subject to subsection (9) below, references in this Part of this Act to the value at any time (referred to in subsection (7) below as "the material time") of any proceeds or of a gift caught by this Part of this Act are references to—

(a) the value of the proceeds or gift to the recipient when he received it adjusted to take account of subsequent changes in the value of money; or
(b) where subsection (7) below applies, the value there mentioned,
whichever is the greater.

(7) Subject to subsection (9) below, if at the material time he holds—

(a) the property which he received (not being cash); or
(b) property which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represents in his hands the property which he received;
the value referred to in subsection (6) above is the value to him at the material time of the property mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, as the case may be, of the property mentioned in paragraph (b) above so far as it so represents the property which he received, but disregarding any charging order.

(8) A gift (including a gift made before the coming into force of this Part of this Act) is caught by this Part of this Act if—

(a) it was made by the defendant at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him; or
(b) it was made by the defendant at any time and was a gift of property—

(i) obtained by the defendant as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another; or


(ii) which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented in the defendant's hands property received by him as proceeds of such activities.

(9) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

(a) the circumstances in which the defendant is to be treated as making a gift include those where he transfers property to another person directly or indirectly for a consideration the value of which is significantly less than the value of the consideration provided by the defendant; and
(b) in those circumstances, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply as if the defendant had made a gift of such share in the property as bears to the whole property the same proportion as the difference between the values referred to in paragraph (a) above bears to the value of the consideration provided by the defendant.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

ASSUMPTIONS AS TO BENEFIT AND VALUE OF PROCEEDS

.—(1) The Crown Court shall, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities and, if he has, of assessing the value of his proceeds of those activities, make the following assumptions, except to the extent that any of the assumptions are shown to be incorrect in the defendant's case—

(a) that any property appearing to the court—

(i) to have been held by him at any time since his conviction; or
(ii) to have been transferred to him at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him,
was obtained by him, at the earliest time at which he appears to the court to have held it, as a result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him;
(b) that any expenditure of his since the beginning of that period was met out of the proceeds of such activities engaged in by him; and
(c) that, for the purpose of valuing any property obtained or assumed to have been obtained by him at any time as a result of such activities, he obtained the property free of any other interests in it.

(2) Where the court decides that any assumption mentioned in subsection ( 1 ) above is incorrect in the defendant's case it shall state its reasons for that decision.

(3) As respects property or expenditure in relation to which the foregoing assumptions do not fall to be made the standard of proof required of the prosecution on the question whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities and, if so, as to the value of his proceeds of those activities shall be that applicable in civil proceedings.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

STATEMENTS, ETC., RELEVANT TO MAKING CONFISCATION ORDERS

'.—( 1) Where—

(a) there is tendered to the court by the prosecution a statement as to any matters relevant in the case of a defendant who has been convicted of a relevant offence—

(i) to the determination whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities; or
(ii) to the assessment of the value of his proceeds of those activities; or
(iii) to the determination whether the requirements of section (Confiscation orders)(5) above are satisfied; and

(b) the defendant accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement,
the court may, for the purposes of that determination and assessment, treat his acceptance as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.

(2) Where—
(a) a statement is tendered under subsection (1)(a) above; and
(b) the court is satisfied that a copy of that statement has been served on the defendant,
the court may require the defendant to indicate to what extent he accepts each allegation in the statement and, so far as he does not accept any such allegation, to indicate any matters he proposes to rely on.

(3) If the defendant fails in any respect to comply with a requirement under subsection (2) above, he may be treated for the purposes of this section as accepting every allegation in the statement apart from any allegation in respect of which he has complied with the requirement.

(4) Where—
(a) there is tendered to the court by the defendant a statement as to any matters relevant to determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made; and
(b) the prosecution accepts to any extent any allegation in the statement,
the court may, for the purposes of that determination, treat the acceptance by the prosecution as conclusive of the matters to which it relates.

(5) An allegation may be accepted or a matter indicated for the purposes of this section either—
(a) orally before the court; or
(b) in writing in accordance with Crown Court rules.

(6) No acceptance by the defendant under this section that any property was obtained by him as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him or another shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings for an offence.

(7) If the court is satisfied as to any matter relevant for determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made (whether by an acceptance under this section or otherwise), the court may issue a certificate giving the court's opinion as to the matter concerned and shall do so if satisfied that the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made is less than the amount the court assesses to be the value of the defendant's proceeds of terrorist-related activities.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

ASSISTING ANOTHER TO RETAIN PROCEEDS OF TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITIES

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, if a person enters into or is otherwise concerned in an arrangement whereby—
(a) the retention or control by or on behalf of another (referred to hereafter as "A") of A's proceeds of terrorist-related activities is facilitated (whether by concealment, removal from the jurisdiction, transfer to nominees or otherwise); or
(b) A's proceeds of such activities—
(i) are used to secure that funds are placed at A's disposal; or
(ii) are used for A's benefit to acquire property by way of investment,
knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that A is a person who engages in or has engaged in such activities or has benefited from such activities, he is guilty of an offence.

(2) In this section references to any person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities include a reference to any property which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented in his hands his proceeds of such activities.

(3) Where a person discloses to a constable a suspicion or belief that any funds or investments are derived from or used in connection with terrorist-related activities or any matter on which such a suspicion or belief is based, then, if he does any act in contravention of subsection (1) above and the disclosure relates to the arrangement concerned, he does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a) the disclosure is made before he does the act concerned and that act is done with the consent of the constable; or
(b) the disclosure is made after he does the act but on his initiative and as soon as it is reasonable for him to make it.

(4) In proceedings against a person for an offence under this section it is a defence to prove—
(a) that he did not know or suspect that the arrangement related to any person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities; or
(b) that he did not know or suspect that by the arrangement the retention or control by or on behalf of A of any property was facilitated or, as the case may be, that by the arrangement any property was used as mentioned in subsection (1) above; or
(c) that—
(i) he intended to disclose to a constable such a suspicion, belief or matter as is mentioned in subsection (3) above in relation to the arrangement, but
(ii) there is reasonable excuse for his failure to make disclosure in accordance with that subsection.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

CONCEALING OR TRANSFERRING PROCEEDS OF TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITIES

'.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) conceals or disguises any property which is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, his proceeds of terrorist-related activities; or
(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction,
for the purpose of avoiding prosecution for a relevant offence or the making or enforcement in his case of a confiscation order.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities, he—
(a) conceals or disguises that property; or
(b) converts or transfers that property or removes it from the jurisdiction,
for the purpose of assisting any person to avoid prosecution for a relevant offence or the making or enforcement of a confiscation order.

(3) A person is guilty of an offence if, knowing or having reasonable cause to suspect that any property is, or in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents, another person's proceeds of terrorist-related activities, he acquires that property for no, or for inadequate, consideration.

(4) In subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a) above the references to concealing or disguising any property include references to concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above consideration given for any property is inadequate if its value is significantly less than the value of that property, and there shall not be treated as consideration the provision for any person of services or goods which are of assistance to him in terrorist-related activities.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

ENFORCEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

'. Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the enforcement of confiscation orders and otherwise for supplementing the provisions of this Part of this Act.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

INTERPRETATION OF CONFISCATION PROVISIONS

'.—(1) In this Part of this Act—
"charging order" means an order made under paragraph 6 of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act;
"confiscation order" means an order made by a court under section (Confiscation orders) above;
"defendant" means a person against whom proceedings have been instituted for a relevant offence (whether or not he has been convicted);
"gift caught by this Part of this Act" has the meaning given in section (Realisable property, value and gifts)(8) above;
"interest", in relation to property, includes right;
"proceeds of terrorist-related activity" has the meaning given in section (Confiscation orders)(2) above;
"property" includes, in addition to money, all other property, real or personal, heritable or moveable, including things in action and other intangible or incorporeal property;
"realisable property" has the meaning given in section (Realisable property, value and gifts)(1) and (2) above;
"relevant offence" has the meaning given in section (Relevant offences) above;
"statutory provision" has the meaning given in section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954;
"terrorist-related activities" has the meaning given in section (Confiscation orders)(2) above.

(2) This Part of this Act applies to property wherever situated.

(3) References in this Part of this Act to offences include references to offences committed before the coming into force of this Part of this Act but nothing in this Part of this Act imposes any duty or confers any power on any court in or in connection with proceedings against a person for an offence if the proceedings were instituted before the coming into force of this Act.

(4) References in this Part of this Act to property obtained as a direct or indirect result of terrorist-related activities include references to property obtained partly in that manner.

(5) The following provisions also have effect for the interpretation of this Part of this Act.

(6) Property is held by any person if he holds any interest in it.

(7) References to property held by a person include a reference to property vested in his trustee in bankruptcy or liquidator; and references to an interest held by a person beneficially in property include a reference to an interest which would be held by him beneficially if the property were not so vested.

(8) Property is transferred by one person to another if the first person transfers or grants to the other any interest in the property.

(9) Proceedings for an offence are instituted—
(a) when a summons or warrant is issued under Article 20 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 in respect of that offence;
(b) when a person is charged with the offence after being taken into custody without a warrant;
(c) when an indictment is presented under section 2(2)(c), (e) or (f) of the Grand Jury (Abolition) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969;
and where the application of this subsection would result in there being more than one time for the institution of proceedings, they shall be taken to have been instituted at the earliest of those times.'—[Mr. Brooke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1A

IDENTITY CARDS

'The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) requiring all persons ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland to possess an identity card;
(b) requiring such an identity card to contain a photograph; and otherwise prescribing the format and content of an identity card;
(c) prescribing the circumstances in which passports may function as identity cards and providing for the issue of identity cards to visitors to Northern Ireland not carrying a passport;
(d) specifying the circumstances in which a person may be required to produce an identity card; and
(e) specifying penalties for failing to produce an identity card.'.—[Mr. Trimble.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations that provide for identity cards in Northern Ireland. It is deliberately drafted in a permissive form to give the Secretary of State leeway in introducing such a system. That is not to undermine or devalue the need for identity cards. Given the situation in Northern Ireland, there is clearly a need for a system of identity cards to enable everyone moving within its jurisdiction to be identified.
One of the major tools used by the security forces when trying to contain terrorism is the widespread operation of vehicle control points, road blocks, and road checks. Earlier this week, the Secretary of State himself, while commenting on the regrettable series of incidents of the past few days, referred to an increase in the number of vehicle control points in the hope that that would inhibit the movement of terrorists and their ability to carry out ghastly acts.
It is essential that those who man VCPs are able to identify people who pass through them, and an identity card system is necessary for that purpose. In Committee, the Minister of State commented:
on the face of it, we can see how a common identity card could be of help. It might help security forces who come to the Province for a relatively limited time and then leave, and do not have the benefit of developing detailed knowledge of the

people in whose areas they serve, as does the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There might be therefore a certain security advantage in that regard."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 326–7.]
I welcome those comments, but the Minister was taking far too limited an approach. Not just Army personnel serving in the Province for a short time require the help given by identity cards; members of the RUC need it. RUC officers may come to know all the people in rural areas with small populations but they cannot know everyone in areas with a population of tens of thousands. It would be impossible for RUC members to know everyone in such areas, let alone all the suspected terrorists. The Minister's remarks point to the need for identity cards to help all the security forces.
Identity cards should be linked to some form of computer databank from which other security intelligence would be available, so by cross-referencing the card, the security forces and others would have available a wide range of information about suspects. To a certain extent, that happens at present. Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are familiar with the extent to which it happens. We have documents which are used for identity purposes. I have in my hand a Northern Ireland driving licence; I referred to it in Committee. Unlike licences in England and Wales, it carries a photograph and is produced in plastic.
Car licence plate numbers are held on a central computer. We know that there is a certain amount of tagging of such numbers. At vehicle checkpoints one regularly sees a member of the security forces reading car registration numbers into a microphone. The general understanding is that that information is transmitted to a central point and checked on the records to find out whether there are any tags in the computer for the registration numbers concerned. The security forces can then decide whether to pull in a car and its occupants for closer examination.
The system that I am arguing for exists to a certain extent already through driving licences and car number plates, but that is a partial, rather than an effective, system.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Should it not also be underscored that this House, in its wisdom, has decided that people must carry an identity card of some type when they vote, and have listed the only identity cards that are accepted on such an occasion?

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is perfectly correct, and the fact that the House decided that evidence of identity should be produced for one function underscores the need for it. The hon. Member will know that the multiplicity of documents available to prove identity for voting purposes is a weakness of the system. A coincidental benefit of new clause 1A is that it would provide for a single, common identity card which could be used instead of all those other documents. That is an incidental benefit, but I am afraid that, in Committee, the Minister was confused into thinking that it was one of the main planks of the proposal. We are arguing for an identity card system to help the security forces, so we need a comprehensive system.
Some people have reservations about identity cards. When one mentions computer records and other information being held centrally they get even more upset. They think that the existence of such information will undermine civil rights or infringe their human liberties in


some way. Like some other hon. Members, I find it difficult to see any merit in that argument. There is nothing unusual about identity cards. Indeed, we are all wearing one. If one looks around the House, one can see several hon. Members who are clearly wearing the required identity card. Hon. Members obviously do not find that the personal use of an identity card is an infringement of their civil liberties because when the requirement to wear one was extended to Members of Parliament it was accepted without murmur or complaint.
Coincidentally, this week's edition of the magazine of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which is supplied to all hon. Members on a complimentary basis, includes an article on identity cards which describes the situation in other European countries. It says:
Spain: A compulsory system comes into force from the age of 14 onwards. Germany: Identity cards are required from the age of 16.
In some other countries, such as France and Italy, cards are voluntary, but the federation understands that they are used on almost all occasions.
The article also refers to the seventh report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, published last July, which recommended the introduction of a common identity card system and discussed the arrangements in Europe. There is a slight conflict between the report and the article about Denmark, but we need not go into that. One states that identity cards are compulsory there and the other says that they are not.
I refer to European practice because I want to emphasise that identity cards are known and are used on a wide scale in Europe and do not cause any problems for civil liberties or infringe human rights. I feel that that objection has no merit.
In Committee, one practical objection to identity cards was mentioned. Persons from the Republic of Ireland come across the border to a number of towns to do their shopping. We would not want to discourage that. Such people might not have identity documents with them. That is an anomaly, which should perhaps be considered more comprehensively. It is anomalous that the United Kingdom still refuses to recognise the independence of the Republic of Ireland in some respects. The anomaly flows from legislation of 1949, in which this Parliament said that it would not recognise the Irish Republic as a foreign country. In some respects that is not a privilege which is being extended to citizens of the Irish Republic, but a subtle refusal to——

Mr. William Ross: It is an insult.

Mr. Trimble: Yes, as my colleague says, it is, in a sense, an insult because it refuses to recognise their independence.
Common travel arrangements, which may have been convenient in other respects, flow from that anomaly. To some extent, there is a strong argument—we dealt with it here on Monday night—for extending proper passport controls and the sort of regime that applies to other countries to the frontier in Ireland. That argument should be studied, rather than allow the present anomaly to persist.
I realise that the Bill may not be the appropriate vehicle to tackle the common travel area in the British Isles. Moreover, with 1992 just around the corner, it may be inappropriate to refer to passports, or to give instructions

to increase their number, because if there is to be free travel throughout the European Community post-1992, we may not want to increase passport arrangements.
The new clause would enable identity cards to be issued to visitors to Northern Ireland, although the regulations that we suggest could also provide for passports as identity cards. Both could be used which should keep the inconvenience caused by the proposal to a minimum.
This may be a temporary provision—much less temporary than the provision that we discussed on Monday—because post-1992 it is probable that there will be a common European standard on the use of identity cards. If there is to be a common travel area in the entire Community and no passport controls at borders, some other form of identification will be required. It is likely that common identity cards will be introduced as a European requirement to deal with the security implications post-1992. If that is the case, the new clause would he temporary because it covers us only for the period between now and the common regime likely to be introduced through the European Community. However, that is like looking into a crystal ball.
The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations for identity cards, which we believe are necessary. To a certain extent, such provision exists, but it must be put on a better comprehensive footing so that we have a common identity card which is used throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: I support the new clause, which has been ably and convincingly proposed. The wording is admirable, as it does not place an obligation on the Government, but would enable the Secretary of State to nudge his Cabinet colleagues and to say that the time has come when we should introduce identity cards in the country as a whole.
The discussion about whether we should follow the lead given by other members of the European Community and introduce compulsory national identity cards has reached a stage at which the arguments for and against are fairly evenly divided. The argument in favour has strengthened. Originally, it was suggested that, apart from its convenience for law enforcement and other purposes, the system would assist immigration control. Subsequently, the question of terrorism has arisen.
The argument for compulsory introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom as a whole has now been largely accepted. A fortiori, we should surely introduce them in Northern Ireland, where the problems of the security authorities are so much greater and terrorism is a constant threat. The public there need to be reassured that the Government are doing everything possible to defeat terrorism and restore law and order. Because I am sure that the Government are indeed determined to do everything possible, I hope that they will accept the new clause and pass the necessary enabling legislation.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: For two reasons, I am surprised at the new clause and its source. First, I gather that the same proposal was made in Committee, but was defeated. Secondly, the new clause would make Northern Irish people second-class citizens, as only they would be required to carry identity cards: Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and citizens of the Republic would


not be subject to the same requirement. Usually, my hon. Friends want Northern Irish people to be treated in the same way as everyone else.
The new clause has been described as permissive rather than mandatory. I do not trust Secretaries of State with permissive legislation. With the best will in the world, they are inclined to use whatever powers they have, often—although perhaps not under the present regime—unwisely, hastily and without due consideration. I think that legislation should always be mandatory, especially when it deals with the rights of the individual and with restrictions on freedom of movement.
Currently, anyone who ventures abroad without some form of identification to present on demand at the legitimate and numerous vehicle check points on every road and byway is acting very foolishly. Nearly everyone, apart from very young people, has identification of some kind. The mind boggles at the idea that identity cards will carry some special mark meaning, "I am not a terrorist" or, indeed, "I am a terrorist", or, "I am a suspected terrorist"; unless we bear in mind the earlier suggestion that the card be linked to a data bank where the holder might be placed, unknown to him, in one of those categories. He would then have no chance to defend himself.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It would be possible to ensure, without the need for a data bank, that different categories were included on the cards. When a card is taken away from someone who is being investigated, the information can be added without anyone knowing. That would have applied to the "smart cards" that were proposed for football fans.

Mr. McGrady: That is true. Anyone who has had the misfortune to buy a secondhand car that, unknown to him, has been tagged will find himself the subject of intense interrogation at vehicle checkpoints. Identity cards cannot further the information that is available to the security forces at vehicle checkpoints. As Northern Ireland Members know, security intelligence in Northern Ireland is extraordinarily intense. I am certain that I could not move a couple of miles from my home without my movements being known and my category well understood at any vehicle checkpoint.
The practicalities make my argument even stronger. Some of the new clause is very vague. It refers to the penalties incurred by those without identity cards. What administrative nightmare will be created, and what new judicial processes will evolve to bring to book those who have forgotten their cards? At what age, for example, will young people be required to produce them? Will it be 18 —the age at which they can vote—or 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 or even 10? Young people need to be free to go about their daily business, whether it be school or leisure. Unless everyone is tagged from the cradle to the grave, the position will become nonsensical. I do not think that even those who tabled the new clause would argue that young people, who are constantly subject to military searches —both personally and when in vehicles with others—should have to carry identity cards to school with them.

Mr. William Ross: Secondary schoolchildren carry bus passes with photographs.

Mr. McGrady: That proves my point. All of us already possess some form of identification.
The new clause involves another administrative nonsense. There is currently a big drive to bring more tourists into Northern Ireland. As soon as they reach either the land border or the sea border—perhaps it is the border with the English channel—tourists must apply for and obtain an identity card. A traveller from the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, the continent, America or anywhere else—intending, perhaps, to do some shopping—must obtain such a card. God knows the problems that hon. Members experience when travelling to and from Belfast under the present security arrangements will be nothing compared with the problems that will arise when a whole queue of people travelling to Belfast with British Airways or British Midland must produce not only passports but identity cards. The poor old sod who has forgotten his card, or does not even know that he should have one, will hold up the whole plane load.
The new clause is unnecessary, because of the plethora of identification that people already hold. More important, however, it takes yet another bite out of personal liberty and freedom. I am talking not merely about the identity card itself, but about the motivation behind its introduction. Information will be in data banks that the individuals concerned will never know about.

6 pm

Rev. William McCrea: I listened with care to some of the spurious arguments advanced by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He showed that he has not read new clause 1A, which was moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
The hon. Member for South Down was surprised that the hon. Member for Upper Bann should have tabled new clause 1A. Surely it is right and proper that we should debate it. The hon. Gentleman did nothing wrong in tabling the new clause, or it would not have been accepted.
The hon. Member for South Down made an interesting point about second-class citizens. He made the strongest integrationist speech that I have heard from a member of the SDLP. People outside will note carefully that the SDLP is concerned to ensure equal status.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my speech. I said that it was an unusual argument for an Ulster Unionist Member to advance.

Rev. William McCrea: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and we shall read his speech tomorrow.

Mr. Mallon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is an integrationist wing in the SDLP.

Rev. William McCrea: This is probably the first time that we have heard of it. Perhaps the cuckoo is coming out of the nest, or perhaps there is a major policy split in the SDLP.
My hon. Friends, and I am sure other hon. Members, were surprised when the hon. Member for South Down said that he was worried about people in the Province becoming second-class citizens. SDLP Members were happy to force on the people of Northern Ireland the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which does not apply in any other part of the United Kingdom and which makes the people


of Northern Ireland second-class citizens. That was a weak part of the hon. Gentleman's argument against identity cards.
I support the new clause. In Committee, some hon. Members took exception to it on the ground that it would infringe civil liberties and civil rights. That was going over the top. Hon. Members carry an identity card.

Mr. Mallon: Where is the hon. Gentleman's identity card?

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was happy to wear his for each Committee sitting, and he is happy to be wearing it again today.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not it a rule of the House that hon. Members need not wear their card in the Chamber?

Rev. William McCrea: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that Opposition Members are still learning the etiquette of the House.
If identity cards infringe civil liberties, why is the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wearing his? There must be another reason for the opposition to the new clause.
How can the Government justify refusing to accept the new clause when they were happy to introduce identity cards for football fans? If cards would have stopped hooliganism and protected fans at football matches, why would not they ensure the safety of the people of the Province? People are required to wear identify cards for less important functions than the safety of the nation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is my hon. Friend aware that since the introduction of identity cards at Luton football club not one arrest has been made?

Mr. Harry Barnes: Luton has no support.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Its takings have increased from £1 million to £5 million, and it has had record attendances. It has not, whether the House likes it or not, had one arrest at its ground. That shows that identity cards work.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. If the Government were happy to accept identity cards for football, why will not they accept them to ensure the safety of people in the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland?
In Committee, some hon. Members said that they would accept a national identity card. Conservative Members were happy to accept that proposal, and suggested to the Minister that the Government should act to implement a scheme.
In 1992, there will be a European identity card. Will Opposition Members object to that as an infringement of civil liberties that makes people in the Province second-class citizens? They will happily accept that card. It will be interesting to see how a distinction is made between Community countries. The citizens of Northern Ireland will probably have to wear an identification card that will show a Union Jack, which will be rather hard for some to swallow.
It was strange—I shall not say hypocritical—that the Government were happy to introduce legislation that made people wear identity cards when exercising the greatest civil and democratic right—the right to vote. No citizen in Northern Ireland is allowed to vote without having identification. Strangely, SDLP Members do not object to that identification card, which can allow or deny

a person the right to vote. Even if someone's name is recorded on the electoral register, he will not be allowed to exercise his right to vote without an identity card.

Rev. Ian Paisley: A presiding officer may know someone and may be able to take an oath to say that it is that person, but he is not allowed to give him a ballot paper without an identification card.

Rev. William McCrea: Yes.

Mr. McGrady: Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was making: the people of Northern Ireland can already prove their identity and the new clause is not necessary.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—at least in respect of the legislation, but not in terms of the person sitting in the Chair.
I am arguing for something that would do away with the load of regulations in favour of only one identity card, which could be easily carried. One of the problems that all our constituents face when they go to vote is that they think that they have the proper identification with them, but are told that it is out of date or that what they are carrying is not one of the accepted identity cards. That is a fact; that is what is happening, as hon. Members of all parties in Northern Ireland know. A common identity card would resolve that problem. Instead of the evidence disproving my case, it actually proves that a common identity card is necessary and would be of great assistance to our people both in the exercise of their franchise and for the safety of the community as a whole.
The hon. Member for South Down made great play of the fact that the provisions might affect visitors at a time when we need tourists. The hon. Gentleman might have found it helpful to read the new clause. Perhaps it would be a good thing if he were to read it now because paragraph (a) states:
requiring all persons ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland to possess an identity card".
He would also find that paragraph (c) covers another aspect of this matter:
prescribing the circumstances in which passports may function as identity cards".
A visitor need not apply for a special identity card, because his or her passport will be accepted as an identity card. Therefore, the legislation will not in any way stop citizens entering Northern Ireland as tourists.

Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an Englishman must bring his passport when visiting Northern Ireland?

Rev. William McCrea: What we have been suggesting is a national identity card——

Mr. Harry Barnes: That is not in the legislation.

Rev. William McCrea: That is correct; that is not in the legislation, because we are dealing with Northern Ireland provisions. However, we are suggesting that it should be a provision of our legislation, and that it should be extended so that a person from England, Scotland or Wales would also have an identity card. Indeed, they will have one in the future. Although some hon. Members may find the idea of an identity card absurd, that is what we shall have in 1992 whether they like it or not.

Mr. Mallon: Is it not a fact that we are discussing emergency legislation? If those responsible for security expressed the need for such an identity card, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Government would introduce it? I am sure that he will share my healthy scepticism of the way in which Governments treat the susceptibilities of people in the north of Ireland. I repeat that, if there were a security need for such a card, one would have been introduced long ago by the Government. The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the marvellous phrase about the curate's egg. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in many ways, this is a bit of a parson's nose?

Rev. William McCrea: Without continuing those clerical references, I suggest that, even if the Government proposed such provisions, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) would oppose them. He does not want this legislation or anything that clearly identifies an individual. Why should we run away from that when we are happy to have identification cards in this House?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the police have come out in favour of identity cards over and over again? It is totally false for the authorities to say that nobody in security wants identity cards, when the law officers and those who execute the law have made such calls. I have heard police officers on our own television saying that it would be a good thing if they could immediately eliminate the people whom they do not need to cross-examine once a bomb has gone off because they know their identities and know that they are no longer needed in connection with the case.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. Now that it is known that the provisions are supported by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will be ready to support and vote for them in the Lobby, given that that was the basis of his argument a few moments ago.
It is true that the security forces have requested, and still desire, such identity cards. It would do the community of Northern Ireland a service if the House were to pass the new clause.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that my hon. Friends and I always want to be treated the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. In case he thought that we were slipping away from that principle, may I reassure him that we do indeed want to be treated exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. What is good enough for Members of this House should be good enough for the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind whenever he tries to poke fun at us because anything that we say is soundly based on the principle of the Union and its maintenance.
Members of this House now wear an identity card and, as far as any of us is aware, we all do so without a word of protest. My wife says that I look pretty good on my identity card—I am not sure that anyone else would agree —despite the colour, which some of us do not really like. We wear the identity card for a simple reason—it is part of the defence of the House, its Members and staff against the actions of the same terrorist violence from which we suffer

in Northern Ireland. If the authorities of the House, the Government, and the leaders of the major parties in the House have all decided that the card is necessary for the defence of Members and the House, and we have agreed, I believe that there is now an excellent precedent for saying that identity card provisions could be applied more generally throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Harry Barnes: If the hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on the precedent of the cards that we are all wearing around our necks at the moment, does that mean that the people of Northern Ireland will have to clip on their cards or wear chains so that the identity card itself can be generally seen when the wearer is travelling around?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman sometimes makes a show of being ridiculous, and he is trying——

Mr. Barnes: It is a ridiculous card.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is a ridiculous card, but it is his photograph on it. As I have said, my wife likes my photograph on the card —I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's wife will like his.
The card is considered necessary in the House. We would not have to wear the card around our necks in Northern Ireland. We wear these cards around our necks in the House for the sheer convenience of the guardians of the House and its Members, and for our own protection. People would not be expected to wear an identity card on their collar or around their necks in Northern Ireland.
An identity card would be useful in all sorts of ways. One way that has not yet been mentioned relates to those who use plastic money in shops. Because of the rates of interest, people may not be anxious to use their credit cards in the future, but we should remember that it would be useful to shopkeepers if purchasers showed not only their credit card, but also an identity card bearing their photograph. There would then be no doubt about identity. Of course, I am assuming that the photographs would be better than those that usually appear on passports.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster pointed out, the provision would be useful, in that a single mode of identification could be used by everyone. It would have the advantage of bearing the photograph of the individual. Most of the documents which are used for identification when casting a ballot do not have a photograph. The identification document which we propose would be extremely useful. It would enable a citizen to go about his normal business with minimum inconvenience, because he would have a simple, straightforward means of identification. I have no objection to wearing identification in the House, given the current position. I would have no objection to carrying it and producing it on demand in Northern Ireland, any more than I object to producing my driving licence or my firearms certificate, which also bear my photograph.
People could be made to carry identification if there were a small on-the-spot fine. If we make a hullabaloo about it, involving court proceedings and a huge fine, people would resist it and would become heroes for refusing to pay. If there were an on-the-spot fine of £1, £2 or £3 every time a person did not produce the identification, everyone would soon catch on. It is a matter of attrition, because only the wicked would refuse to produce identification.
As to personal freedom, I objected to the legislation on the compulsory wearing of seat belts, but I wear one now, as a law-abiding citizen. I suspect that most people would take the same attitude to the use of an identity card. Personal freedom is damaged far more by terrorist action. Our civil rights are injured far more by the activities of the IRA and other terrorist organisations than they would be by the carrying of a positive means of identification. The format would be a matter for discussion, but the introduction of an identity card would be one of the most useful things that the Government could do for the convenience of citizens of Northern Ireland.
As has already been pointed out, after 1992 we may be forced to produce an identity card for the entire United Kingdom. If so, I suspect that the civil rights, personal freedom and all the other objections which have been bandied about, not only today but on every other occasion when the matter has been debated, will vanish like a morning mist. There will not be a cheep, especially from those who are in favour of the Common Market.
The objections to the new clause are spurious. There is no good reason, apart from Government cowardice, for opposing such a provision. It should have been done long ago. It should be brought into operation without further delay, because there is no good reason for delay.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not propose to prolong the debate, since I spoke on the subject on Monday. May I inform the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that I dealt with it in the context of the entire United Kingdom? We are asking that it should apply not only to Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. We are not as brainless as the hon. Gentleman may think. There are some brains north of Newcastle as well as south of it. I should point out to him that the Bill before the House relates only to Northern Ireland.
Why do Northern Ireland Ministers not want to take up the proposal? Has it to go before the Anglo-Irish Conference? Has the Secretary of State to persuade Mr. Collins that it would be a good idea? Has he to exercise his great talents of persuasion and to use all possible pressure to get agreement? We know what happened with conscription in Ireland when we were at war. Pressure from the south kept conscription from the north. Let me put it on record that, nevertheless, there were many volunteers from the south and the north in both world wars. We remember the nationalist community from the south who fought so bravely at the battle of the Somme in world war 1.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Might not it mean that Mr. Collins would have to bring his passport when coming to see the Secretary of State, because he would not have an identity card?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland Ministers were glad to put the passport of the Irish Republic on a level with the passport of Her Majesty's Dominions as a means of identification for voting, so no doubt they would have no twinge of conscience about accepting anything, including even a pass to a bar in Dublin. An on-the-spot fine might change the Secretary of State's mind: he might decide to get payment from Mr. Collins for not having a pass.
Police officers on both sides of the water have often spoken to me about the importance of eliminating people

on whom they do not need to waste time when there has been terrorist activity. The way to do so is to have proper, on-the-spot identification.
I had a letter from the Secretary of State the other day telling me that he intends to bring in an additional means of identification. The Government are going to add yet again to the list of acceptable identification documents. I suggest that he abolishes all those means of identification and introduces one identity card to do the job at election time.

Mr. Forsythe: I am amazed at the great reluctance of hon. Members representing the major parties to countenance an identification document. Points have been made about the number of identification documents which we have and it has been said that we do not need an identity card. I think that makes the case. When we consider the number of items that a person could have, I cannot see any reason for not having an official identification document.
There is a passport, a driver's licence, a national insurance number, a student's pass, a House of Commons pass, a Visa card, an Access card, an American Express card and bank cards. If we have to travel on public transport, our names are put on tickets on planes, on boats and on rail. Hon. Members are proud to display their photograph and their party affiliation on election literature and posters. When a person is employed, he may have a clock number, a pay number and even a VAT number. When the major parties hold conferences, delegates have conference passes. Even people playing football have numbers on their backs for identification, as do rugby players. I understand that cricketers may have to put their names on their cricket kit.
I was disturbed to learn recently that if someone applies for a telephone, British Telecom will approach credit companies for information about the person. If the applicant has had difficulty with credit in the past, British Telecom will make that person pay a deposit for the telephone. In all, we have an amazing number of means of identification.
I am surprised that there are those in the United Kingdom who are afraid to identify themselves and are not proud to take their pass out of their pocket and hand it to whoever asks for it. They wish to hide their identity. I am afraid that most of those people fear that in certain circumstances such identification would be a disadvantage to them.

Mr. David Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with modern technology all the identifications that he has described can be put on one identity card?

Mr. Forsythe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman pointed that out. That could be a case for introducing a single identification card to cover all those matters. I agree that perhaps such a measure should extend to the whole of the United Kingdom rather than apply only to Northern Ireland.
Of course, such identification cards are very handy for elections in Northern Ireland. I wonder how the major parties would react if there were a close result in an election or by-election—[Interruption.] No, I am not prophesying. If identification documents were required and perhaps 500


people were not eligible to vote because they had no identification document, that might make people think differently as regards the position in Northern Ireland.
In wartime, identification documents had to be obtained. We feel that we are in a war situation in Northern Ireland and see no reason why we should not have identification documents.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was incorrect on only one point—his point about what occurred in Committee. A motion similar to the one before the House now was dealt with in Committee and was withdrawn. Had it not been withdrawn, we should not be debating a similar motion now. The new clause is slightly different from the proposal in Committee because a flaw in the previous proposal in respect of what would happen to people who had come from outside Northern Ireland has been covered by a provision allowing passports to be used as identification. The new clause is more consistent than the previous proposal, but it is no more correct.
The last place in the United Kingdom and perhaps in the world where identity cards should be introduced is Northern Ireland. That is partly for the reasons stressed by those who want to introduce them—that when incidents take place, the police can get hold of information quickly. Identity cards would be a godsend to terrorist organisations. Identity cards could be inspected by terrorist organisations and fed into their databanks and computers. We have just discussed a measure on how we could confiscate the vast funds that terrorist organisations hold. Undoubtedly, they have great strength of organisation, and their organisation would be further strengthened by introducing identity cards which people would be expected to carry with them all the time.
Enough problems are already caused by terrorists getting hold of identification documents. People might choose to go about without identification, not simply to avoid the security forces but to avoid being tackled by terrorists and their friends. Furthermore, the technology referred to by the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) which allows cards and smart cards to bear all sorts of information seems terribly dangerous. Such cards can be impregnated with invisible information which can be read only by those who have the proper machinery. Not only the security forces may have such machinery. In any case, there may be worries about the security forces and the police having access to such information. Terrorist organisations may get hold of the machinery and add all types of information, including basic information about whether they judge the person to be a Protestant or a Catholic, which they could use on future occasions.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the first line of the new clause, which says,
The Secretary of State may make regulations"?
Surely such regulations would be subject to scrutiny in the House and surely the House would lay down the information which could be put on the card. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that the officials who would create the cards would carry out the instructions given to them, how would he deal with such people?

Mr. Barnes: If officials were given cards which could be impregnated with information other than that which they

had been requested to put on it and the House made regulations which prohibited them from doing so, an extra problem would be created in respect of the acceptability of the cards in Northern Ireland. Vast elements of the population may come to believe that the cards would be misused even though the regulations prohibited it. If it is possible to impregnate the cards with various information, the IRA and Protestant paramilitary organisations would hardly be put off by regulations passed by the House.
There are further serious reasons to be added to the points made by the hon. Member for South Down about why the measure is incorrect and will be counterproductive. It is a dangerous measure and that is why the House should vote against it.

Mr. Jim Marshall: You may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, except for some minor alterations, the new clause was debated at some length in Standing Committee. We have had a longer debate this evening, with one or two new players. Unfortunately, contrary to the idea of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), they did not have numbers on their backs, so we found it difficult at times to identify them. With the exception of the idea of soccer numbers and, I presume, rugby numbers and perhaps even innovations for cricket teams—about which the Secretary of State may tell us in a future debate—no new arguments have been made in the debate.

Mr. William Ross: Yes, they have.

Mr. Marshall: No new argument ever comes from the mouth of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). No new arguments have been made in the debate.
There is an argument for identity cards. I do not agree with them but I admit that there is an argument. There is a genuine debate about identity cards, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe. That may be a factor which we shall have to face post-1992.
The only justification for introducing such a scheme into the Province and not into the remainder of the United Kingdom is that it would improve security and enhance the position of the security forces vis-à-vis terror groups in the Province. All the information that I have received, and certainly the view advanced on behalf of the Government by the Minister of State in Committee, runs counter to that argument. The information from the mouth of the Minister of State is that that is not a requirement of the scheme.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the cards which we wear in the House of Commons are a waste of time? Would he wish us not to carry them?

Mr. Marshall: That is a red herring. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not wear my identification card in the Chamber. If right hon. and hon. Members see me around the building, they will know that I do not wear it then either. I take the view, rightly or wrongly, that as an elected Member of this place who represents the people who send me here the security forces have a duty and responsibility to recognise me and all the other elected Members. For that reason, I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who has only just entered the Chamber, and similar arguments that were made by Ulster Unionist Members.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman were stopped and asked to produce his identity card, would he do so?

Mr. Marshall: If I am stopped and asked for identification—not in this place, because as an elected Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, I am supposed to be known to the security people—[Interruption.] That is true, but it is a different argument.
If I were stopped by the police, on suspicion that I had committed an offence, and were asked to produce identification—not on the spot, but at a place of my choosing, in agreement with the police—I should do so. But that point is totally different from the one concerning the general introduction of identity cards in the Province of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in his interpretation of the Minister's response in Committee to his amendment, sought to mislead the House to some extent. I shall quote what the Minister said in the Standing Committee on Thursday 31 January. He will forgive me for quoting him. On the other hand, perhaps he is pleased, as I may be saving him the problem of quoting himself. On that occasion he said:
If his argument"—
the argument of the hon. Member for Upper Bann—
was for security, on the face of it we can see how a common identity card could be of help. It might help security forces who come to the Province for a relatively limited time and then leave, and do not have the benefit of developing detailed knowledge of the people in whose areas they serve, as does the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There might, therefore, be a certain security advantage in that regard.
Those are the words that were quoted by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister used the conditional tense throughout that part of his statement. But he went on to say:
However,"—
note the change—
I am not aware that the security forces or the police have major difficulty identifying people. Indeed, I know from our debates that at least some in the community think that the ability of the police and security forces to determine people's identity is over-extensive, almost to the point, of being intrusive. So the argument that a security lacuna needs to be filled does not convince me."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 326–27.]
Hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, should bear that in mind when this new clause is put to the vote. In the Government's view, identity cards in the Province alone would not affect the security situation a great deal. I think that I am right to say that the hon. Member for Upper Bann misled the House a little when he prayed in aid the remarks of the Minister of State: In fact, the Minister of State was using a slightly different, and stronger, argument to refute the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.
6.45 pm
In another debate, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) argued that identity cards should be supported if it were thought that they would provide extra security assurance. Like the Government, I believe that identity cards would not provide additional assurance against acts of violence, or enhance the position of the security forces in the Province. In Committee, the Minister could not think of any overriding security need to justify the introduction of such cards—and I am sure that his officials were putting their minds seriously to the subject.

The argument stands or falls on the basis of the security question alone. For that reason, if for no other, I oppose this new clause.
The Minister also mentioned reasons of convenience. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has sought to rectify the fault in the new clause by introducing paragraph (c), but the basic argument still applies. The Province has many visitors, not just from overseas and from the Republic, but also from the remainder of the United Kingdom. I travel to Northern Ireland fairly frequently, though not as often as some of my hon. Friends think I should. If I had to produce my passport or an identity card —a card for which I had had to be photographed—or were further inconvenienced in what can already be a very trying journey, even I might find that a deterrent. Such an additional restriction, as well as deterring visitors and tourists from the remainder of the United Kingdom, could well have a detrimental influence on business people travelling to the Province. I refer to business men not just from abroad but also from the remainder of the United Kingdom. Surely it is such people that the Province is most anxious to attract, on the ground that inward investment and jobs are so important. The convenience argument is as strong now as it was when the Minister of State used it in Committee on 31 January.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr.Beggs) has just walked into the House. I gave way to another hon. Member who had only just entered the Chamber, and I do not intend to repeat the practice this evening.

Mr. Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly observed that I have not been present for the entire debate. There is a good reason for that. The hon. Gentleman suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had attempted to mislead the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself would not want to mislead the House by suggesting that travel to Northern Ireland is always a trying experience. Perhaps he will admit that he could travel more than 100 miles in Northern Ireland without being stopped by a member of the security forces.

Mr. Marshall: When I talked about travel I was not referring to travel within the Province. I suppose that I really ought not to reply to the hon. Gentleman's point, as it is really a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as the point of order was really directed at me in the form of a question—[Interruption.] That is a lesson that I never fail to learn in debates with Ulster Unionist Members, including the hon. Member for Antrim, East, with whom I have spent some happy hours in the Province. Travel within Northern Ireland has never presented me with any problem. If that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants, I am happy to give it. However, as he must know, the journey from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is sometimes trying. That is what I was referring to.
I want, finally, to repeat something that I said in Committee. As the Minister will know, in Committee my speech on this matter was very short. My party and I find it ironic that the new clause should be introduced by a political party that believes in selective internment on the ground that the terrorists are already well known to the


security forces. If that proposition is correct—it is put continuously by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—and the people are already known to the security forces, why would identification cards make their job any easier?

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, give a ruling on whether hon. Members are required to produce their identity cards outside the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am not an authority on those matters, but my understanding is that hon. Members are not required to wear their identity cards in the Chamber, which is a matter for the discretion of the individual. My responsibility does not go beyond the Chamber, but I understand that hon. Members are required to wear their identity cards in the Palace of Westminster and advised not to wear them outside it. I am speaking on matters for which I have no authority outside the Chamber, but I think that that is the general position.

Mr. Marshall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to involve you in a squabble that does not concern you as it does not relate to order in the Chamber, but the red herring was introduced by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). My understanding is that the letter from the Serjeant at Arms contained a request, not an order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that is so, why are hon. Members stopped by the security officers and the police and asked to produce identity cards? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] They have been. I came to the House the other day without my identity card, I was stopped at the door of the House and asked where my identity card was. I said that it was in Belfast. I was asked to produce my identity card and I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consult Mr. Speaker because I think that the occupant of the Chair should be able to give us a proper ruling so that we know the facts. The majority of hon. Members believe that they have to produce identity cards and if they are wrong, they had better know the truth. We are informed that, outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, we are expected to wear our identity cards and produce them on request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that hon. Members are not obliged to wear their identity cards in the Chamber, but are expected to wear them in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster outside the Chamber, and are advised not to wear them outside the Palace because they may make themselves vulnerable. The precise obligation on hon. Members outside the Chamber, but within the precincts, is a matter dealt with in the guidance issued by the Serjeant at Arms. It is right that the security authorities of the House should have the power to challenge an hon. Member about whose identity they may have doubts, so that the identity is put beyond doubt.
As I understand it, no hon. Member has been refused admission to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster because he or she was not, at the time, wearing his or her identity card. Identities are challenged, but once they have been established the hon. Members are admitted. It would

be unwise for me to seek to go beyond that. I have given as comprehensive a reply as I can and I hope that we can now get back to new clause 1A.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to make it perfectly clear that the police officer who challenged me knew me and did not try to stop me, but asked for my identity card.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would have been astonished if any of our security staff did not recognise the hon. Gentleman on sight. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the vigilance of the security forces on that occasion.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): At the beginning of our proceedings, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) encouraged all of us to be concise and not to waffle. I shall seek to follow the sterling example of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this and other speeches that I have to make during the evening, being careful at the same time to answer the arguments of the individual debates. In that context, it may be helpful if I start by clarifying one or two issues, so that I do not have to come back to them as I review this interesting debate.
First, this is emergency legislation as it relates to Northern Ireland, and is not United Kingdom legislation. There may be arguments on both sides of the fence for an identity card scheme in the United Kingdom, but, as I made clear in Committee, that is not what the legislation is about, and neither I nor the Northern Ireland Office have responsibility for such a scheme in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the House, like the Committee, will not allow me to become sidetracked by that argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has consistently supported the introduction of an identification scheme throughout the United Kingdom, for which I pay tribute to him and do not argue with him, but that does not relate to this debate. I recognise the legitimacy of the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who spoke on Monday about an identity card system in the United Kingdom. That was perfectly legitimate. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, there is an argument relating to such a scheme on a United Kingdom basis, although he does not support it, but it does not relate to the Bill, so I do not wish to get involved in that argument tonight. Exactly the same argument applies to the issue of 1992. There may be discussions about having identity cards after 1992, but that is not a matter for the Northern Ireland Office or for me, and I do not want to include it in my reply.
Secondly, this is emergency legislation, so if identification cards were to be introduced under it, it would have to be—as the hon. Member for Leicester, South said—for an overwhelming or compelling security reason, not for administrative convenience or any other reason. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). There is an argument that, on purely administrative grounds, one form of identification is better than six or seven. Another argument to be made is that six or seven forms of identification provide a degree of convenience. But those are not the issues before the House in relation to the new clause. This is emergency legislation, so security should be paramount.
As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) said, we debated this matter in Committee. The original clause was withdrawn and was reproduced as clause 1. I suspect that, following the debate in Committee, new clause 1A was added to address the issue.

Mr. Trimble: indicated assent.

Dr. Mawhinney: I see that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) nods in agreement. I do not believe that he sought to mislead the Committee, although I understand why the hon. Member for Leicester, South said so. The hon. Member for Upper Bann quoted what I said in Committee to support his argument, but in Committee he made it clear that he is much too good a lawyer not to expect other hon. Members to quote different parts of my speeches in Committee to counter his argument. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, South for doing so and for saving me the trouble.
I repeat what I said in Committee: the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces already have considerable powers to examine and establish people's identities. There is no evidence that the RUC experience any major problems in establishing people's identities. This point was made in Committee by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and it remains as true now as it was then.
I am told that it would be technically feasible to produce an identity card and even one that would be difficult to forge, although there would be no guarantee that it would be impossible to forge. However, even if such a card were produced, all it would show was that it had been issued by the appropriate authority. It would not necessarily identify the individual who was holding it. It would not prove, for example, that the card had not been fraudulently applied for, or that the information on it was accurate. Accordingly, a sophisticated screening system would be necessary to prevent fraudulent applications.
7 pm
Given the scope for abuse with postal applications, a system of personal applications would probably be necessary. The population at which an identity card system would be particularly targeted—terrorists and their supporters—represents considerably less than 1 per cent. of the total population. Whether certain persons fall into this category would not be known to the issuing authority, and, given that consideration, the RUC would probably be the most appropriate issuing authority. However, this would present major resource difficulties for the RUC, and there would also be security reasons for not allowing too much public access to police buildings.
When the hon. Member for South Down raised some of the practical difficulties, most people could identify with them, whether or not they found them compelling. However, there are even more fundamental difficulties associated with such a scheme in the context of Northern Ireland that the House must bear in mind.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the argument have asked what would happen to those wishing to come to Northern Ireland who were not normally resident in the Province. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has tried to solve that problem, but the new clause does not answer some of the fundamental difficulties associated with it.
It is all very well saying that people from the Republic or from Great Britain could get an identity card before

coming, but where would they get it, from whom and on the basis of what information? How would that information be checked so that we could be sure that it was accurate?
There are serious problems at the heart of the issue. If that of dealing with people living outside Northern Ireland is put in the context of the United Kingdom, as it might be, some of the difficulties would be lessened, as they would be if it were put in the EC context, but that is not the issue before the House. We are dealing with these two clauses, which relate just to Northern Ireland.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that such a scheme is likely to be a deterrent not only to visitors but to those who have an investment commitment to the Province. Ministers and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies spend a lot of time out and about around the world singing the praises of Northern Ireland—its beauty, its hospitality, the generosity of its people to visitors and the advantage of investing there for the creation of jobs. It does not make sense then to introduce regulations which have no compelling security argument behind them but which would be detrimental to that process.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann for his consistency. He said in Committee that he was not impressed by the civil libertarian argument against identity cards, and he repeated that this evening. Nevertheless, such arguments exist, and they are compelling for some people.

Rev. William McCrea: When the Minister says that there is no security argument for such a system, is he speaking with the authority of the Police Federation or in his capacity as the responsible Minister?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Member must have seen me turn to address the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to answer that point. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about hearing police officers on television or personally saying that they are in favour of such a system. I do not question what he has told the House. He will want to know that the RUC were consulted on this subject, at senior level, during a major security review in 1988 and they said that they were not in favour of an identification card scheme—for two reasons. First, they did not believe that such a system was necessary; secondly, they said that there would be formidable problems in administering an effective scheme. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. That is the best and most up-to-date information that I have.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Was that information given by the present Chief Constable or the former Chief Constable, Sir John Hermon, who was always against identity cards?

Dr. Mawhinney: The advice was given in 1988; the hon. Gentleman will be able to work out the answer to his question from that information.
We have had a good debate and aired important issues that the House should consider. However, I am not convinced that the uncertain advantages of a compulsory identity card system outweigh the practical difficulties and penalties associated with it, or that the security arguments are compelling in the Northern Ireland context. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann will follow


the good precedent that he set in Committee and not push the new clause to a vote. If he does so, I must ask the House to resist it.

Mr. Trimble: As the Minister said, we have had a good debate. It was much longer than the debate we had in Committee, and a wider range of views have been expressed. One of the advantages of the debate is that we have now had a longer and more considered response from the Opposition. In Committee, the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) limited himself to two interventions.
I am sure that the hon. Member will understand when I say that I must take exception to his suggestion that I intended to, or did, mislead the House. No one could reasonably hold that view. I quoted precisely the words that the Minister used in Committee. The limited and tentative nature of his support for an identity card system was clear from the words that he used and, after quoting those words, I went on to disagree with them in some respects. No one could have been misled then, but if they were, I hope that I have made it clear now.
The burden of the observations of the hon. Member for Leicester, South and the Minister was that the security forces do not want an identity card system. I am not privy to the advice given by some senior officers in the RUC in 1988 but, like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I have often heard members of the security forces refer to this system. I believe that the Northern Ireland Police Federation, like the Police Federation of England and Wales, as evidenced by the article that was coincidentally published this week, is in favour of it.
It is a constant wonder to those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland how advice from senior levels of the RUC so often seems to contradict our experience and what we hear at almost all other levels of the RUC from those people to whom we speak when we come across them. Those views never seem to be expressed by people speaking to us. We could all benefit from such experiences.
The Minister of State said that this was a debate on Northern Ireland emergency provisions, not a debate on the United Kingdom or Europe. He was right to say that, strictly, some of these matters are not relevant, but such a narrow approach is not altogether realistic. Issues overlap, and form part of the background. I appreciate that there would be difficulties in operating this scheme on a purely Northern Ireland basis, but I am convinced that, even on that limited basis, there would be advantages, and that we must explore these matters further.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was worried about tampering with identity cards, and he referred to smart cards. Last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee argued in its seventh report for smart cards. I hope that the hon. Gentleman noticed that I did not argue for them. Cards could be tampered with. The system could be broken into and be open to abuse. I am not an expert and am prepared to be guided by those who are experts in this matter, but it may be safer to have a simpler card that relates to information held in security force data banks.
The new clause does not attempt to deal with all the points of detail. It is an authorising, empowering provision, which leaves it open to the Secretary of State to

make regulations. We would expect regulations to deal with many of the points made in the debate, particularly some of the Minister's.
Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties that would arise for visitors, and I agree that they would arise. I do not think that they can be avoided if security measures are to be taken. Significant numbers of people move back and forth between Northern Ireland and other places. At certain times of the year when thousands of people travel, hon. Members are occasionally caught up in huge queues at Heathrow, but the people involved travel year in and year out; they would need to get an identity card only once, or they could use other identity documents, if that were provided for by regulations. The problems could be overcome.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised some interesting points which got him into some difficulty with hon. Members, especially when he said that it was strange that such an argument should come from our Benches, because it suggested that we wanted to create second-class citizens. He was not being integrationist; he was using the words ironically. I am sure that he appreciates the danger of irony because it often backfires; he will learn from that experience.
The hon. Member for South Down asked about the age from which people would carry identity cards. I am not old enough to remember it personally, but I believe that identity cards were carried by the entire population during the war. That answers his point.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the penalties would be. They would be a matter for the regulations. We have referred in previous debates to European precedents. In France, citizens are arrested if they cannot produce an identity card and are given four hours to find it. In Spain, people are given time to produce their card on request. Similar arrangements exist in Germany. A range of procedures could be followed, but I suspect that the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) would be the simplest procedure.
The hon. Member for South Down complained about my suggestion that the identity cards could be used in connection with information held in security force data banks and was worried about what that might lead to. This week, an article inPolice states:
In Denmark … they record data from the cards onto computers. This information includes health service numbers, criminal records and even the number of a library ticket.
That procedure does not seem to have worried the Danes. We should bear that information in mind when objections are made on a civil liberties or human rights basis.
The hon. Member for South Down referred to a practice which I mentioned earlier, whereby identity cards are logged on security force computers and tagged by reference to their owners' perceived activities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties that people face when buying second-hand cars. He will realise that an identity card system would remove those difficulties, because the information would be tagged by reference to the identity card rather than the vehicle. I trust that there will not be a market in second-hand identity cards.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member obviously did not pick up my point correctly. I said that, as many members of the security forces are on short-term duties in Northern


Ireland, presentation of an identity card by, for example, me would assist them in determining whether I was a terrorist or suspected terrorist. That could happen only if that card were accompanied by computerised data about which I knew nothing but which showed whether I was such a person. If that information is not attached, the card is just a piece of plastic which is entirely useless for security purposes.

Mr. Trimble: That is what I said in introducing the new clause—that there should be a link between an identity card and a computer database. That system exists. The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about the difficulties that some card owners would face. My point is that they would not get into difficulties if there were an identity card system.

Mr. McGrady: I would not know what information was held about me.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has repeated his concern about not knowing what data were held on him. I do not know what data are held on me.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Member should know.

Mr. Trimble: People in Northern Ireland do not know what data are held on them. I am not sure that we should know. I am not sure that I want to know. By a roundabout route, I once discovered information held on security force files about me that was utterly wrong, but I thought that it was quite a joke. That would make an interesting story which I will not repeat. Anyone who wants to find out the whole story can see me outside.

Mr. McGrady: On a point of information, let me explain what has happened in other circumstances. Some of my constituents have lost their jobs because of incorrect data held by the security forces. On only one occasion was I successful in getting an accusation rebutted and the person involved restored to his job. One has no control over the data. If that is acceptable to the hon. Member, democracy is down the drain.

Mr. Trimble: We could pursue that matter at some length. There are several unknowns. One cannot assume that the information is always incorrect. We appreciate that there is a serious risk in Northern Ireland and that serious measures must be taken in response, just as they have been and will continue to be taken. Occasionally, inconveniences fall on innocent people. We expect people in the community to support the need for these measures and to accept inconveniences where they arise. That is necessary and it applies in respect of identity cards as well.
I was encouraged by some support during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who expressed his support, just as he did in Committee, although he supported cards on a United Kingdom basis. Perhaps such a system will end the anomalies that may arise by operating on a Northern Ireland basis only.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) also supported an identity card system, although on a United Kingdom basis. I can think of no better way of concluding than by quoting the hon. Gentleman's exact words, and I hope that I do not mislead the House by doing so. The hon. Member said:
I see no reason why an identity card should not be used throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern

Ireland. I firmly believe that the only people who would object are cranks and those who are up to no good—the latter are the very people we want to trace quickly and bring to justice". —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 325.]
That sums up the matter in a nutshell.
In view of the wide-ranging discussion we have had on this matter, my hon. Friends and I are confident that this cause will continue to progress. We believe that there is significant support for an identity card system, and we are encouraged that we are winning the argument on this matter. Consequently, I do not intend to press the motion to a Division but will seek to withdraw it, as I did in Committee. I am sorry if I have disappointed hon. Members who sought otherwise.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

New Clause 2

MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

'If the Attorney General for Northern Ireland is of the opinion that a conviction may be unsatisfactory or unsafe in the light of relevant evidence which was not available to the court at the time of conviction and at the time of any subsequent upholding of the conviction, he shall refer the case to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal for further consideration.'.—[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to uncover Government thinking on miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. We are also thinking of the consideration that the Secretary of State is giving to the case of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four, otherwise known as the Armagh Four. The new clause also deals with possible mechanisms that could be introduced to deal with suspected failures of justice.
The report of Sir John May on the implications of the Guildford Four case for the criminal justice system in England and Wales will soon be submitted. The conclusions that Sir John reaches, having examined all the factors involved, must be tackled by Northern Ireland Ministers. The new clause seeks to explore Government thinking on that and it gives hon. Members who wish to do so the opportunity to raise issues that they believe to he relevant to the case of the UDR Four.
We do not make any pretence that the new clause represents the best or the only way in which to tackle problems of miscarriages of justice in Northern Ireland. We do not intend to suggest that such miscarriages of justice are excessively frequent in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland has a good reputation, particularly on the supergrass trials. There is only one case that has gone to that court that has aroused great emotion and confusion in the community —that of the Armagh Four.
There is a need to consider ways in which such miscarriages of justice can be resolved, especially given the sensitive nature of public confidence in the administration


of justice in Northern Ireland. That is a fragile commodity and there is a paramount need for an effective, corrective mechanism in Northern Ireland.
The present law is embodied in section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which gives the Secretary of State discretionary power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal when he believes that some new evidence or factor not available at the time of the trial has come to light. It is on the basis of that particular power that the Secretary of State is now considering the fresh material submitted by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in the case of the UDR Four.
Our solution to the problem is to take away the Secretary of State's present role when considering possible miscarriages of justice. It is hard for the ordinary citizen to distinguish between the semi-judicial and political roles of the Attorney-General, but it is infinitely more difficult for people to distinguish between the high profile political role adopted by the Secretary of State and his quasi-judicial one when he discusses evidence before him. We believe that the Attorney-General, in his capacity as Law Officer, would be more suitable than the Secretary of State to handle such cases. It might be thought that the Secretary of State has responded to particular political pressures in certain cases.
The case of the Armagh Four is happily the only major case of possible miscarriage of justice in Northern Ireland. On this island, however, we have had the cases of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire family. The Armagh Four are four members of the UDR who are contesting their convictions for murder. It is not for me to declare their guilt or innocence, but the Secretary of State will know of my concern from correspondence that I had with his predecessor. Members of the families of some of those convicted have approached me and I am aware of the unease felt not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom about the safety of the convictions.
Obviously, the interests of justice and public confidence in the criminal legal system demand that the evidence collected by the supporters of the Armagh Four, some of whom may speak later in the debate, should be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal as quickly as possible. We hope that the Government will introduce a long-term mechanism that will obviate the need for my previous remarks, and prevent the need for such long-drawn-out campaigns by many people in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
7.30 pm
The interests of justice demand a self-correcting mechanism in the criminal legal system which will remove the need for outside pressure. A booklet has been produced by campaigners who support the case for the retrial of the UDR Four. Point 8 in the introduction makes an interesting and valid comment on which I should like the Minister of State to comment. The compilers of the dossier say:
We contend that the referral of this case to the Court of Appeal will have been brought to the point of inevitability by the contents of this dossier.
That is a matter for judgment, but it is the opinion of the people who prepared the dossier, which continues:

However, the Secretary of State might also like to consider whether or not it would be more appropriate that there be a police inquiry by another force … such as preceded the resolution of the Guildford case. More particularly, not that an investigation has commenced, the scope and remit must be widened and the legal representatives of the men should be given access to all the relevant material.
That is important and it is necessary for it to be carried out.
The May report will no doubt contain many important recommendations, but it is not for us to guess what they will be. It is important carefully to consider the need for an independent forensic service in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That has been shown by the English cases, and the need has also been shown by what is happening, or may have happened, in Northern Ireland.
Cases such as that of the Armagh Four always arouse great emotions. In a contentious situation the attitude of the Secretary of State or any other Minister is bound to create controversy on both sides of the community. It is vital that both sides of the community have absolute confidence in the administration of justice. Taking away decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State because of the existing law and putting them in the hands of the Attorney-General or into some other mechanism, if one can be found—we are not bound by the details of our proposal—would make a judicial decision less politically flawed. Already, too many decisions in Northern Ireland have caused grave questions to be asked not about the judges, but about Ministers.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the Opposition for the new clause because it enables us to debate a case that is vital to the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. I approached the Secretary of State about this matter and he graciously responded and said that he certainly would be prepared to consider any evidence that we would prepare and put to him. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were appointed by our party to consider the preparation of a dossier. The remit was widened and a committee of all interested parties was set up and prepared the dossier from which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has quoted.
The Secretary of State has received that document and has assured me and my colleague, the leader of the Official Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that he is giving it careful attention. The Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in this matter. I urge on him the necessity of a speedy decision because at the end of the day his decision is really a referral to a court which will decide whether there is a case to be answered and whether the weight of the new evidence is such that it would be unsafe to uphold the verdict of a previous court.
I am convinced that the weight of the new evidence and some of the facts that have come to light cast considerable suspicion and a shadow upon certain witnesses upon whose word the judge largely depended in his summing up. The statements of those witnesses have been challenged and seem to be seriously flawed.
I am alarmed by a matter that was brought to light by Mrs. Mairead Maguire, who was better known to many of us as Mairead Corrigan during the high days of the peace movement in Northern Ireland. Mrs. Maguire has been looking at the case of the UDR Four and at the part played by two well-known Roman Catholic priests, Father


Faul and Father Murray. In a letter Mrs. Maguire says that she accepts what the dossier states about her role in this matter. There is no challenge to what is contained in the dossier.
Mrs. Maguire said that the two priests had collected certain evidence against the UDR in this case but that they would not give it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary until they had undertakings from the Chief Constable and higher authority. Those undertakings were:
1. That an entire UDR patrol, operating in the North of the city, should be arrested by Police Officers from another locality.
2. That the UDR soldiers should be taken to a holding centre other than Gough Barracks, namely, Castlereagh.
3. Interrogating Officers should be of Senior Rank and again the majority of these officers, preferably completely unknown to any of the Soldiers.
Until those undertakings were given and carried out, the priests were not prepared to present the evidence that they had collected.
It is troubling to know that certain people can go to the authorities and ask for something to be done before they are prepared to bring forward evidence. I am alarmed at the fact that it has been established beyond doubt that when RUC officers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are brought before a court on charges relating to violence or terrorist crimes, the authorities go the double mile to make the defence case difficult to present. In prison, they even lose the facilities that are given to members of the IRA and other organisations. In case after case, I have had great difficulty obtaining even the elementary parole that was due to some police officers. I have raised that matter before and I find it difficult to understand.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that all classes in Northern Ireland should feel that they have recourse to justice and that justice will not only be seen to be done but will eventually be done. Whoever it is, that should he established in their mind. But when I talk to the families of police officers and members of the UDR who have been charged with such crimes, it is apparent that even in prison their membership of the security forces is held against them, and that is not right. I trust that the Secretary of State will take that on board this evening.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling the new clause, but he knows that I do not agree with it. I do not want the Attorney-General to have this power because if he did we would not be having a debate such as this. All sorts of judicial barriers would be put up and Mr. Speaker would be telling us that we should proceed in accordance with the motion and it is unlikely that I would be able to table such a motion so there would be no opportunity to discuss such a matter. Therefore, I am arguing tonight that the Secretary of State should retain and exercise the power.
I come to the authority upon which the judge seemed to rest when he gave his verdict—witness A. I am sure that all hon. Members will be amazed to hear something of what happened to witness A. Witness A had some terrible things to say when she appeared on Radio Telefis Eireann about how she found herself having to give evidence against the UDR men. There is also a typescript of a telephone conversation between witness A and Mr. Hegan. In that, she states clearly that the two officers who were interrogating her said that
they were bad boys and that no judge in the land would ever let them out. He said that if they get out and they kill someone, he says, it will be your fault for letting them out …

because they'll murder all round them. I said I didn't believe they done it. He said 'They done it all right'. So what d'you want me to … what do you expect me to believe?
We cannot try anyone in the House, nor can anyone be tried on television, but when a question mark is placed over evidence given on oath on which the judge largely relied, and said that he did, there must be an inquiry. I urge the Secretary of State to do his level best to bring his inquiries to a speedy conclusion. As I have said, he is not passing a verdict——

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the UDR Four request and desire is that justice now be done and be seen to be done in their case?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes. That is why I say that the Secretary of State is not asked to give a verdict; he is asked to say that the court should have another look at the evidence. We are asking the Secretary of State for a referral.
7.45 pm
I am also worried about the electrostatic data analysis reports from the police. I do not know why those have riot been made available. I have talked to the Chief Constable about the matter. The fact that he has set up an inquiry into the matter arouses suspicion. If he feels that he has to appoint a high ranking officer to investigate the ESDA reports, there must be something to investigate. Those reports need to be made public. Certainly the lawyers for those four young men should have them. I urge the Secretary of State to come to a speedy conclusion on the matter.
As I have said in an early-day motion, this matter affects a wide range of people in Northern Ireland. It casts its shadow across the Province. If some members of the police force have acted wrongly and illegally, they must be brought to justice and dealt with. There cannot be and must not be any cover-up. After all, those four young men put their own lives at risk by joining the UDR. They could have had their lives taken from them; they could have been shot by the IRA if they had continued to serve in the regiment.
Bearing in mind that the four were members of the UDR, a regiment of the British Army set up by the House, and bearing in mind what the people who are not sympathetic to the Loyalist position have been saying—I salute them because they are prepared to face up to the matter—it is imperative that the Secretary of State refer the matter to the court as quickly as possible. I make that personal plea tonight with all the passion of my heart, having known the young men and their families for years and having known what they have gone through. Then the court can give them a proper trial and the allegations in the dossier can be tested in a court of law. The people against whom they have been made will have the opportunity to rebut them if they are able to do so. No man should be seen as guilty before he is proved guilty.
There are many other matters in the dossier that I could read to the House, but I will not do so. Through the extracts that I have read, I have tried to show just how serious the matter is. I urge the Secretary of State tonight to give some hope to the four young men and to their families that the country that they have sought to serve so faithfully and well is prepared to give them the right that every British citizen should have—the right to British justice.

Mr. William Ross: New clause 2 is entitled "Miscarriages of Justice". I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and to his hon. Friends for giving the House an opportunity to debate the unfortunate consequences of such incidents.
Given human nature, there is always a chance that something will go wrong with the legal process. When miscarriages of justice occur, they are blots not only on the police, as the investigating officers, but on the the defence and prosecution solicitors and barristers, the judiciary, and the community in general. We have every right to feel deeply concerned when miscarriages occur, and we should do all that we can to make amends.
I was once involved in a case in which an individual admitted to murder when questioned by the police, pleaded guilty to murder—it was a particularly vile murder at a farmhouse—and was given a long sentence. As a constituent of mine, he subsequently wrote to me. Like most Members of Parliament who are contacted by prisoners, at first I wondered whether he was not just another of the innocent men of which prisons seem to be full whenever one speaks to their inmates. That prisoner also wrote to Mr. Douglas, who represented a Londonderry constituency at Stormont—and as the murdered man was a neighbour of his, both Mr. Douglas and myself started our own investigations.
Mr. Douglas visited the farmyard where the murder took place. By then, we both had a good idea of the contents of the convicted man's statements. We discovered that he had described not the yard in which the murder had actually been committed, but one a mile or so down the road. We were left in an extremely difficult situation. Mr. Douglas and I went to see the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who was then a Northern Ireland Minister. If the Secretary of State cares to talk to the right hon. Member for Chelsea, I am sure that he will recall this clearly. We put our views to that Minister, having discussed the case at considerable length with the police. Eventually, the right hon. Member for Chelsea, the police, and ourselves were thoroughly convinced that something was wrong, but we were in some dilemma as to what could be done.
The matter was eventually resolved when another individual made a statement to the police indicating that he had driven the car that had taken a group of robbers to the farmhouse where the murder had taken place. Unfortunately for my constituent still in prison, that witness subsequently committed suicide. We found ourselves in an even more difficult situation. We were in possession of a confession from a dead man, another man was in prison, and there was evidence that seemed to cast a deep shadow of doubt over the safeness of the conviction.
As it happened, my constituent was released some months later. Nevertheless, that experience brought home to me the necessity of collaborative evidence. It is well known that whenever a murder occurs—the more vile its nature, the more likely this is to happen—there is a queue of people waiting to claim the credit for it. That happened even when the death penalty was still in force.
Police questioning techniques have moved on, and the police can play on the psychology of the suspect and exert considerable pressure. There is a danger that people admit to crimes that they did not commit, which is why we need more than a signed confession. When the innocent are

convicted, or convict themselves, the unfortunate consequence is that the guilty escape due retribution for their wicked deeds. The case that I described makes me view with somewhat less jaundiced eyes those individuals who, having been convicted, then claim that they are not guilty. I begin to wonder whether they are not further examples of the type of case in which I was involved.
I know nothing of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, or the Maguire family, because they have little to do with Londonderry, East. Nor have I concerned myself with the case of the UDR Four, to which a large part of the debate has been devoted, because they were from the constituency of a late colleague, Mr. Harold McCusker. I well remember his reaction whenever a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was charged with murder. He was exceedingly angry that the regiment was once again being besmirched.
When Harold McCusker first talked to the UDR Four, he was a very troubled man—and he was not a fool, as those right hon. and hon. Members who knew him can testify. He undertook extensive investigations, and I understand that his wife is still associated with the committee involved with the UDR Four. The more he examined the facts, the more convinced he became of the innocence of those individuals and that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice.
I have not been personally involved, but since Harold's death, other hon. Members have taken an interest in that case—not least the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), party leaders, and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who has reported fully to the members of his party. Having myself heard the results of investigations, I have grown more and more concerned. The powerful case being made for the UDR Four should be fully investigated, and a completely fresh look should be taken at what appears to be a most dreadful miscarriage of justice, with four soldiers serving life sentences for murder.
Complaints are sometimes made about the fragility of justice in Northern Ireland. However, in the face of the most dreadful provocation and difficulties, it has proved far more robust than in England—to judge from the number of people apparently being found not guilty after serving many years in prison.
Frankly, I am not one of those to call for speedy decisions, in the light of my experience in investigating one such case. I want careful and deep consideration to be given to this matter, and not a precipitate announcement. I want the matter to be thoroughly investigated and I want the truth to come out for the good of all concerned, because that is the safest and the wisest way to proceed.
In all four cases with which we have been concerned —three in England and one in Northern Ireland—where people have been tried and convicted, it would appear that in England the police reached quick decisions and acted upon them, that people were convicted and that on every occasion the guilty have escaped.
8 pm
Certain questions follow on from that regarding police activities after the trials were over and convictions had been handed down. Did the police consider that their work was done in each of those cases? Did they stop asking questions? Did they close the files? Did they forget about the 21 people who died in a Birmingham pub? Did they forget about all the folk who died as a result of the alleged


activities of the other accused? If so, people are walking around who committed those murders and who have got away with them because the police did not do their jobs properly and because, frankly, the courts and the lawyers did not do their jobs properly. That is a real blot on the legal system in this country, and it must be tackled and corrected because the people of this country cannot afford to lose faith in the judicial system or in the capacity of the police—whether the RUC in Northern Ireland or any of the police forces in England—to carry out efficient, in-depth investigations that enable them to lay their hands on the guilty, rather than condemn the innocent. It is a serious matter, which will not go away.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and to his hon. Friends for tabling the new clause. Our discussions have perhaps wandered rather far from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill but this matter had to be aired in the House, and aired rather bluntly.
I have investigated one such case in my constituency. The individual concerned was eventually released on licence. In the light of all that has happened since, I wonder whether that decision should not also be reconsidered and a fresh trial granted to that man, who has now been free for some years. The fact that he is still under licence is not a satisfactory outcome for him.
If the four Ulster Defence Regiment men, or any of the other people mentioned, were to be released on licence, the blot would remain. That blot must be removed if they are innocent; and if they are not, proof of the guilt should be put beyond any reasonable doubt.
There is more to say, but I think that all the necessary things have been said about these cases many times over. I should prefer the matter to remain with the Secretary of State for a decision rather than going to the Attorney-General. I find it easier to talk to another politician than to a legal man. No matter how much I may disagree with the politician, at least we can keep on hammering at him, time after time, in this place. That is a good reason to let the matter rest with the Secretary of State for a decision, and that is the only quibble that I have with the new clause.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will carry the provisions of the new clause into effect. In his opening remarks he said that the reason for the new clause was to explore the Government's mind. The hon. Member may rest assured of one thing—he has put his view, hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have put their views, and we now wait with interest to find out what the mind of the Government is.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to add my voice to those who have thanked the shadow Secretary of State for tabling this new clause, which has given us an opportunity to speak on an issue of some considerable importance to people in Northern Ireland, none more so than the four men who have been imprisoned for the past seven years as a result of a miscarriage of justice.
At least in its more candid moments, the House will recognise that miscarriages of justice occur. Happily, however infrequently that may happen, this is not a perfect world. From time to time, either people who enforce law and order in Northern Ireland or members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland make mistakes. It is quite clear that one such mistake was the conviction of four men arising out of the murder of Adrian Carroll on 8 November 1983. Four of the six men who appeared before the court were

convicted—all were members of an Ulster Defence Regiment patrol. The men were charged with murder and the basis of the Crown case against them was that together, and with others, they had conspired to murder a well-known republican, Adrian Carroll, and that they had done so in a premeditated fashion.
The Crown described the way in which they had carried out the murder. To support its contention, it had signed statements from five of the men before the court and a statement from a witness, known as Mrs. A. The Crown had another and, in my view, more important witness—indeed, the only witness who was able to give evidence that she saw the gunman. She was the only eye-witness to the killing of Adrian Carroll. She was brought by the Crown to the court and was never broken down during cross-examination or by evidence in chief. She testified that the gunman she saw on the day of the killing was smaller than she was—she is 5 ft 4 in—and that he was not the person charged with murder, Neil Latimer. That was the evidence given by the Crown's eye-witness.
The eye-witness to the event had clearly testified that, not only was the person in court and arraigned as being the gunman not the gunman; it was someone considerably smaller. Neil Latimer is 5 ft 10 in and the estimated height of the gunman is 5 ft 2 in. There were a number of other witnesses to a pattern of events on the day of the killing which was considerably different from the pattern suggested by the Crown. Mrs. A, who was not at the scene of the crime, identified Neil Latimer close to Armagh on that day in dress similar to that which Elaine Faulkner, the single eye-witness, had said that the gunman was wearing. That produced a link for the Crown between the evidence of witness A, who said that she had seen Neil Latimer, and the events that took place in Abbey street in Armagh.
To all intents and purposes, the signed statements of the men in question led to their convictions. As I said, more than four men appeared before the court, but the case against one man was thrown out precisely because the court recognised that undue pressure had been applied to him under interrogation. It recognised that the police had behaved in a way in which they were not entitled to behave to secure a signed confession from the man. The same judge could not, however, accept that the same pressure could have been applied to the four other men before him, or that their signed statements could have resulted from physical or mental torture by the RUC.
The four men gave evidence to the effect that they had not signed their statements willingly, and that the statements had not been written by them but had been concocted by others. The most important evidence against the four was represented by those signed statements of admission, which suggested a pattern of events that fitted the evidence of witness A.
As the two pillars of the case against the four were their signed statements and the evidence of witness A, the judge, in finding the four soldiers guilty, was disregarding the evidence of the one eye-witness who had testified that the accused was not the gunman, the evidence of the Archbishop's gardener, who had seen the gunman depart in a different direction from that mentioned in the Crown case, the evidence of a police patrol who had been on the road by which, according to the Crown case, the gunman had left, but had not seen him, the evidence of a resident of Abbey street who said that the man who had shot Adrian Carroll had left by a different route from that described by the Crown, and the evidence of other


members of the UDR who had been in the same patrol as the four men. If the four were guilty, they were not guilty alone; nine other guilty men are outside prison. The Crown case was that the entire patrol was involved in the murder. I should add that the judge also went against the evidence of the four men.
Since the appeal, much new evidence has come to light. Like the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), I live some distance from the constituency, and I felt that the matter did not directly involve me. No one from the constituency had come to see me. Some years later, however, I met the mother of one of the four men by chance at a wedding. She told me, "My son is serving a life sentence in prison for a crime of which he is not guilty."
I confess that at the time I thought, "Well, she would say that, wouldn't she?". Naturally a mother would find it hard to believe that her son might be guilty of murder. The lady—Christian lady that she was—said that she would send me some papers to try to convince me. Of course, I expressed willingness to read any papers that she sent. I was rather surprised when, about a week later, the papers arrived. She had sent me the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It struck me as strange that someone who was trying to convince me of her son's innocence should send me the judgment that had convicted him rather than, for instance, her counsel's summation of the case in his defence.
I read the judgment. On five or six occasions, the Lord Chief Justice had had to consider whether to take the side of the Crown or that of the defence in order to settle a matter of contention. Each time, he had come down in favour of the Crown. Whenever there was doubt, he gave the Crown the benefit of the doubt. I had always thought that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused, especially in murder cases, in which sentences of life imprisonment can be imposed.
8.15 pm
After reading that lengthy judgment, my initial scepticism diminished. I was no longer sure that the conviction was safe. I could not and did not say at that stage, either publicly or privately, that I believed the men to be innocent, but I asked the lady to send me more documentation—a request that I regretted somewhat on the arrival of a 4ft-high pile of transcripts of both the original trial and the appeal.
As I waded through those papers, I became convinced beyond doubt that the conviction was insecure. The more I read, the more doubt I felt. I met the families of the convicted men. At that time, the only campaign for their release was the one promoted by their families. They had no new evidence then, apart from a transcript of what had been said by witness A on an RTE programme. That transcript had been given to the Secretary of State's predecessor, who had judged that it did not amount to new evidence that would justify the referral of the case to the Court of Appeal with a recommendation for a retrial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was, however, promised that, if we provided a dossier of new evidence, the Secretary of State would consider it carefully. About 18 months ago, we set about putting the dossier together. We suspected then that it might take us two or three weeks, but the more that we

delved into the case, the more doubt entered our minds, the more queries were raised and the more new evidence was unearthed.
At that point, the two props that had held up the prosecution case in court were pulled away. There can be only two ways of drawing the statements signed by the two men into question, both of which are forensic. The most direct is a test known as syntax analysis—a linguistic test involving the examination of the formation of words and sentences, from which it aims to determine whether the words and sentences used in the text in question could have been uttered or written by its supposed author. The authority on that test is Professor Andrew Morton, of Edinburgh university. He has considerable expertise, and has been employed in cases elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States and Australia. He has written many books about his work, which is considered completely accurate.
Professor Morton was given copies of letters written by the four UDR members, and their so-called statements of admission. When he compared the two, he reached a definite conclusion and when I spoke to him on the telephone, he described his findings plainly. I approached the subject almost sideways. I did not want to imply an answer in the terms in which I put my question; I made it clear that I wanted his view. I asked him whether any concern arose from his study of the letters and the statements of admission. He replied:
There is cause for more than concern, there is cause for alarm. They"—
the confessions—
are quite unsatisfactory. Not one of them is a genuine confession of the accused.
That man has considerable experience in the subject. He studied each of the confessions and determined that not one of them was genuine. In more detail, he suggested that the statements had been concocted by more than one person, which fits with the views expressed by the four men concerned, who said that their so-called confessions were concocted by the interviewing officers and that they were forced to sign them. Syntax analysis establishes that the so-called statements of confession were not made by the four purported authors of them.
The second way to assess the accuracy, and therefore the relevance, of signed confessions is the electrostatic data analysis technique. The legal representatives of the families of the four men asked the RUC to carry out ESDA tests on the interview notes. The Chief Constable of the RUC was given a preliminary report by the forensic science laboratory, presumably because of its concern about the results of the tests. The preliminary tests showed that a considerable number of alterations had been made.
The laboratory considered about 200 documents, and the ESDA tests showed that changes had been made to almost every page of the interview notes. In some cases, there was a multiplicity of changes in the interview notes.
The initial test results fuelled the concern of the Chief Constable who, rightly and properly, before awaiting the final document, asked one of his senior officers to carry out an investigation. He would not have ordered such an investigation because somebody had not spelt a word right, because their grammar was not right or because they got the name of a town or place wrong. Such an investigation would be ordered only if changes of some significance had been made. The Chief Constable admitted by his statement that the ESDA tests caused some concern


about the authenticity of the interview notes. The syntax and ESDA tests question the correctness of the so-called signed statements of confession, which were one of the main pillars, if not the main pillar, of the prosecution case.
As the statements were supported by the evidence of witness A, we must consider how that evidence stands up in the light of the fresh evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North mentioned how the process began. Witness A called in two parish priests who assisted her—I use that term having considered fully the consequences of it—to put her statement into writing. During the court case, it was recognised that she signed her name on seven blank pieces of paper and that the statement was included afterwards.
As I understand it, the priests went to the local police chiefs and said, "We have evidence which implicates members of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the murder of Adrian Carroll." The natural response of the police chief to whom they spoke was, "I hope that is not true." On hearing that, the priests felt that the police were reluctant to take action against the UDR men and said, "We shall take our statement elsewhere."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said, according to Mairead Maguire of the peace people and Mr. and Mrs. Bell, the father and mother of one of the four UDR men, Father Faul admitted to them that he went to see the Chief Constable and someone higher. I shall not abuse the rules of the House by naming that person because I have no evidence against him, but as it is an hon. Member I am being particularly cautious. They were given three undertakings before they handed over the statement: first, that the RUC would arrest a patrol of the UDR; secondly—this was a fairly understandable concession—that they would be interviewed by officers who did not know them and who were senior in rank, which is normal interrogation procedure; and, thirdly, that they would be interviewed in Castlereagh holding centre and not Gough barracks. Hon. Members are wondering why on earth Father Faul, who has castigated Castlereagh holding centre, would want the men held there rather than at Gough barracks. Presumably, he sought to get them moved further from the location in which they were known. Therefore, before the statement of evidence was given to the Chief Constable of the RUC, an undertaking had been given to arrest a patrol of the UDR.

Mr. Trimble: If the account that we have heard is correct—I believe that it is—a decision to arrest was made before the evidence was to hand. Therefore, the arrest was not only unlawful but the decision to arrest people was taken with the participation of someone higher than the Chief Constable. If it transpires that that person was an hon. Member and perhaps a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, that was grave interference by a member of the Executive in a quasi-judicial decision, which is quite unprecedented and has grave constitutional implications that should be explored.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right. That incident has given rise to wide-ranging ramifications —if Father Faul's statement is true. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the Secretary of State was being asked to refer the case to the Court of Appeal for retrial and to consider whether it might be appropriate for a further investigation to be

carried out. That is an important point that needs to be underlined, especially given the special circumstances of this case.
8.30 pm
In relation to witness A's statement, the agreement had apparently been entered in before it was in the hands of the police or even of its Chief Constable. That would be very bad if it happened in connection with any member of the general public, but we are talking about a patrol of the British Army—about members of our security forces. The fact that an undertaking was given to arrest members of the security forces without seeing any evidence against them seems totally absurd. However, I shall not labour that point because my general point relates to the validity of the evidence of witness A.
After her statement was handed over, the RUC presumably started to question witness A and to get details from her. As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North has said, a transcript is now available of a telephone conversation between witness A and the father of one of the four men who has been convicted. It is available in the dossier and I have the original tape. It contains several points of importance suggesting that witness A was pressurised at various stages when she was giving evidence.
In court, when the accused person to whom I referred earlier was discharged because it was felt that undue pressure had been applied to him, witness A telephoned the parents of one of the four UDR men and said, "I am unhappy at what is happening in court and I intend to retract my evidence." One can imagine the feelings in the home of the parents of that young UDR man when they were informed that the witness upon whom the prosecution was relying intended to retract her evidence. Naturally, the parents informed their legal representative who, next day, sought to have witness A recalled so that she would be in a position to retract. During that day, the court was informed that witness A was not available, but that she would be brought to court on the following Monday. The telephone transcript showed that witness A was not only available, but was ready to go to court. However, instead of being brought to the court, she was deliberately taken instead to Mahon road police station where she was pressurised not to retract, but to stand by her evidence.
According to witness A's own mouth, therefore, the police had deliberately obstructed justice from being done and the Crown counsel had unknowingly misled the court by stating that the witness was unavailable, no doubt on the basis of the information that had been received from the police. As has already been recorded in Hansard, the remarks were attributed to witness A because she was told that those men were murderers; that the police knew that they were murderers, and that if she did not stand by her evidence, the blood that they would shed in the future would be upon her.
If witness A is to be believed, there are serious consequences for the RUC. However, I do not believe that witness A is to be believed. It was unknown to us at the time of the trial, at the time of the appeal and until recently, but it has been established, that witness A has twice been in a mental institution for what was termed "a psychopathic personality". I am informed that her medical history notes that:
(a) she is a danger to herself and to her children.
(b) she is … persecuted.


(c) she is inclined to be jealous.
(d) she is very unstable, emotionally varying from depression to aggressive tendencies … demanding to get out of hospital yet due to her attitudes and threats one could not allow her to do so.
(e) she is suffering from a mixed psychoneurotic reaction.
She was recorded as suffering from:—
(1) Obsessional fears or thoughts.
(2) Disturbance of behaviour and activity.
(3) Delusions and misinterpretations."
I repeat that the Crown's key witness is someone whose mental history shows that she suffers from delusions and misinterpretations.
Under the new clause, it will be the Attorney-General—at present it is the Secretary of State—who has the job of referring such cases to the Court of Appeal. Knowing what we now know about witness A's background and the evidence about the confessions, I ask the House how anyone could possibly believe that, if the judge at the trial or the judges at the appeal had had that information available to them, they would not have arrived at a different conclusion. In my view, it is a probability—at the very least, it must be a distinct possibility. Furthermore, there is other and additional new evidence. Therefore, the job of the Secretary of State, or what would be the job of the Attorney-General if we adopted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, is to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal so that it might consider the strengths and depths of the new evidence that is available to us.
There is no longer any need for the Secretary of State to wait for the final report from the RUC, the result of its investigations into the ESDA tests, or of the investigation into the interviewing officers who have to explain away why changes were made in the interview notes. If one sets aside the ESDA tests, there are still compelling reasons—indeed, an irresistible case—why the Secretary of State must refer that case to the Court of Appeal for a retrial. If he was to do otherwise, it would bring into discredit the whole process of law in Northern Ireland.,
I happen to believe that, simply because a mistake has been made in the judicial system or in the police system of law and order enforcement, that does not mean that the system is rotten or that it needs to be dragged down; it simply means that a mistake has been made and that it has to be put right. We damage the system more by pretending that a mistake has not occurred and that everything is all right when everybody of four years of age and upwards in Northern Ireland knows that it is not all right. If we were to suggest that our courts and our police are infallible, we might fool ourselves, but we would not fool the people of Northern Ireland or the general public anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Mistakes can be made and a mistake has been made. I urge the Secretary of State at the earliest opportunity to send this case to the Court of Appeal. He does not have to decide the innocence or guilt of the four men—and he will be glad that he does not have that onerous responsibility —but he has a responsibility to judge whether there is sufficient new evidence or significant new factors to merit the case going before the Court of Appeal. Having heard what I have said in the past few minutes outlining a part

of the new evidence, the Secretary of State has an unanswerable case for passing the detail to the Court of Appeal.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I had not intended to speak, but on reflection I felt that I should, because for some time I have been pressing at business questions for the Secretary of State or the Attorney-General to come to the House to make a statement on the case of the UDR Four. Therefore, if I do not speak now, some people may think that I am running away from the issue on the only occasion that we have been able to debate it.
I should be happier if the new clause referred to the Secretary of State rather than the Attorney-General. I welcome the understanding that the new clause has been tabled to tease out Government thinking. So long as matters are in the realm of the Secretary of State, it will be possible for hon. Members to raise them sooner or later in the Chamber. One can choose different ways of doing so. If a matter is kept strictly within the sphere of the legal fraternity, we cannot get the necessary debate and scrutiny.
I have been interested in the case since shortly after the four men were arrested and detained in custody prior to trial. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) will remember, if he reads the debate, that I was in correspondence with him about the trial being brought forward quickly, for two reasons. First, I still believe that justice delayed is justice denied. Secondly, I have had grave misgivings over the years about servants of the Crown being imprisoned in the same place as terrorists and ordinary criminals who know their background. Having spent a couple of day in Her Majesty's "hotel" at Crumlin road, and having been there when a young British soldier was brought in, I know the feeling of prison inmates that he should not have been there.
I pressed for the trial to be brought forward. I was convinced of the innocence of the four men. The case had been brought to my attention by the prison chaplain who asked me, at their request, to visit them. I listened carefully to their story, because I have been around long enough to realise that most people want to paint the best picture of their case. As I probed them, I was absolutely convinced that they had not been party to the crimes of which they were accused. Time elapsed before the trial. I will not go into detail on the trial, but several points lend credence to the belief that there has been a miscarriage of justice. The time has come to put it right by an open examination of the facts.
I think that it was a previous Secretary of State who suggested in a letter to a colleague that the retraction of the evidence of witness A was unimportant in so far as her evidence did not lead to the conviction but only to the police being able to extract confessions. I may be naive, but I am speaking now in tribute to my young colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edgar Graham, who was murdered by the IRA. He was one of the brightest young legal brains in the United Kingdom, and respected equally in the United States.
Sitting on the Assembly bench in Stormont, I said to Edgar, "I cannot understand how anyone would confess to a crime which he had not committed." He said, "I know what you are saying, but all I can say from my legal background is that I have seen it happen time and time


again. People can be conditioned into saying things that lead to their conviction when they have not been party to the crime."
Thereafter, I began to look afresh at the case. We have an opportunity in the Chamber to highlight a miscarriage of justice, in the opinion of many people in Northern Ireland. There should be a proper appeal procedure to examine the evidence again and to bring out a new verdict, which I believe, in the light of the information and evidence now available, will be not guilty.
Servants of the Crown have as much right as others to the protection of the legal system. If we are prepared to allow a right of appeal to others who, so far as we can see, have been improperly convicted, servants of the Crown should not be penalised simply because they were servants of the Crown and there was a reaction because it was felt that they had let the side down. That seems to be the real reason why the case has gone so far.
I support the thrust of the new clause but dissociate myself from the terminology which would put the Attorney-General in place of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has been listening carefully to the debate, will in the near future come up with the good news that he has asked the Court of Appeal to re-examine the case.

Dr. Mawhinney: We have had an important debate about serious matters. The new clause is headed, "Miscarriages of justice". It is common ground that when miscarriages of justice occur that is an unhappy state of affairs. We are also united in believing, happily, that they do not happen often.
When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the new clause, he said that he was doing so in a probing fashion, explicitly to permit hon. Members who wished to do so to comment on the case of the UDR Four, as it is commonly known. He has succeeded in that purpose.
I must deal first with the new clause. As it is a probing new clause, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the probe and will withdraw it. If not, I will have to ask the House to reject it for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary, as it seeks to confer on the Attorney-General a power which, in substance, is already possessed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Secondly, the new clause is drafted in terms which would apply to a conviction for any criminal offence. It is in any case inappropriate for inclusion in an Act which is temporary and is concerned only with an emergency situation. The proper context within which to consider a change of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman is legislation on the general criminal law.
The hon. Gentleman set out the existing law. Under section 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. That power is not unique to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman did not suggest that it is, but I think that he suggested that it is more difficult for someone in a political role to exercise that power. In accordance with the practice followed in England and Wales, and in Scotland, successive Secretaries of State have been prepared to

exercise the power only when some new evidence or new consideration of substance which was not available to the trial court or at any previous appeal came to light.
The new clause seems to envisage a reference being made by the Attorney-General in almost exactly the same circumstances. The Attorney-General would refer a case when there was
relevant evidence which was not available to the court at the time of conviction and at the time of any subsequent upholding of the conviction".
The Government's view is that a power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal because there are doubts about the justification for a conviction would more appropriately be exercised by the Secretary of State than the Attorney-General. I think that I am right to say that all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, except the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North sustained that view. It is more appropriate to the Secretary of State, not least because the Attorney-General has responsibilities in connection with the prosecution of certain offences with which the new power might not sit comfortably. We further believe that it would make no sense for similar powers to be possessed by both the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been present throughout the debate. It is worth making that clear for the record. He has listened carefully, as I have, to everything that has been said on the case of the UDR Four. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for expressing his appreciation and, I expect, that of his hon. Friends and others, of the "careful attention"—I use his phrase—which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is giving to the dossier provided to him. That was appreciated. I have also noted that he wishes the matter to be tackled as speedily as possible. That view is endorsed by other hon. Members, but I am sure that they also accept the view of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that processing and consideration should not be so speedy that it is not exhaustive and detailed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be justified in referring the case of the former UDR soldiers to the Court of Appeal unless some new and substantial evidence which was not available at the time of the trial or the appeal came to light. The dossier on the case presented to my right hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), to which much reference has been made and from which quotations have been given to the House, was handed over on 10 January this year. As the hon. Gentleman told us, it took more than a year to prepare. It is currently being given vigorous and detailed consideration. The dossier raised several issues on which the advice of the Chief Constable of the RUC has been sought.
As has been said, the RUC was already conducting an inquiry on foot of receipt of a report from the forensic science lab on the outcome of electrostatic deposition analysis tests on the original police interview notes from the interviews with the four men. The result of that inquiry by the Chief Constable will be reported to the Secretary of State and will be an integral part of his further consideration of the case.
The House will have heard the views that hon. Members have expressed about the case and the conviction with which they were expressed, but the House will also


understand that I am in no position to comment on any of them. They reflect what is in the dossier and the dossier is being given detailed consideration as speedily as is appropriate in all the circumstances.
I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will feel that the debate has been worthwhile—I believe that it has—that his probe has been answered and that the views of the Government have been made clear on both the substantive motion and, as far as I am able to go at this point, on the UDR Four. I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Mr. McNamara: I thank hon. Members from the parties of Northern Ireland for their kind words about my hon. Friends and myself. We felt that it was important that an issue of such concern should be given an airing, particularly as hon. Members from the area have tried to raise the matter in different ways. It seemed to us that to table a new clause on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill would give hon. Members an opportunity to make their points, however it was calculated and provided that it was selected. However, I would point out that the UDR Four were convicted of scheduled offences so the emergency powers legislation, which creates scheduled offences, is the right place to raise the matter.
I was not aware until now that the Secretary of State was so popular with the hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The wind of good will which has blown through Belfast town hall during the past few days must have affected the Chamber, too. They have shown their confidence that he is the right person to hold his position.

Mr. Molyneaux: Has it escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I have been engaged in harmonious, civilised discussions with the Secretary of State for well over 13 months? It is to our mutual regret that we have not made more progress than we have, but that is the fault of others and not ours.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am sure that everyone involved in the discussions has had a harmonious relationship with the Secretary of State. We all hope that the discussions will be carried forward to such a point that talks will take place shortly on the three points which all parties have accepted should be the basis of any talks.
But I digress. If hon. Members are prepared to accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to refer cases, they should also be aware that there are anxieties about whether matters even come before the courts and whether prosecutions are ever carried through. There was a decision not to prosecute on the Whiterock killings and on the Armagh killings, otherwise known as the shoot-to-kill killings. The attitudes of the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in those circumstances perhaps gave substance to the anxieties expressed by hon. Members. That may be why they preferred that the Secretary of State should have the power.
Three further points are important. I hope that the Northern Irish Members will consider them when considering other legislation which has been before the House or might come before the House in future. First, hon. Members objected to the way in which the UDR

Four were originally arrested. I share their objection, but they voted to give that power to the police on Monday night when the Labour party suggested that the power to trawl should not be allowed. That power was vigorously defended by the Home Secretary.
Secondly, Northern Ireland Members are concerned about uncorroborated confessions. Opposition Members have emphasised the dangers of accepting uncorroborated confessions, whether in this part of the Kingdom or in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said that he had been concerned time and time again about what his friend the late Edgar Graham had told him about people being tricked or persuaded or pressured into making uncorroborated confessions.
In this context, I have to draw attention to amendments which were tabled but not selected by the Chair. Of course, I make no criticism of the Chair. I refer to amendments concerning cases involving scheduled offences. Despite some of the difficulties of which the police talk, interviews ought to be tape-recorded. That could be done with appropriate safeguards. Interviews could even be videoed. The essential point is that if the dossier evidence that we are asked to believe is true—evidence about the pressuring of the four soldiers; evidence about the intensity of interrogation—allegations of verbal or other ill-treatment would be revealed. Such recordings were recommended by Lord Colville. However, the Government refused to accept his recommendation and, regrettably, it did not have the full support of Northern Ireland Members.

9 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes: I should like to know whether the concern expressed by Labour Front-Bench Members who, by initiating this debate, have enabled the UDR to be discussed—the expressions of concern were picked up by Northern Ireland Members—is shared by other Back-Bench Members. I am one of those who have been in correspondence with two of the UDR Four. I have written to the Secretary of State. I think that there is wider concern than has been reflected in this debate.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. Miscarriages of justice should be the concern of all Members, and all such allegations must be examined very carefully.
We have had an opportunity to discuss the issue. I felt that we had a duty to the people of Northern Ireland to make sure that their feelings were ventilated. That having been done, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

ARMY OMBUDSMAN

'.—(1) There shall be established in Northern Ireland the office of ombudsman for the army.

(2)No holder of the office of ombudsman for the army shall be or have been either a member of Her Majesty's Forces or a member of any police force in the United Kingdom.

(3) The term of office of the ombudsman for the army shall be five years, renewable for a second term of five years.

(4) The ombudsman for the army shall be responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints made to the Royal


Ulster Constabulary against members of Her Majesty's forces serving in Northern Ireland, including members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

(5) The ombudsman for the army shall be informed of every complaint under subsection (4) above within one week of every such complaint being made.

(6) A complaint under subsection (4) above may be made directly to the ombudsman for the army, in which case the ombudsman for the army shall refer the complaint to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and subsection (5) above shall not apply.

(7) The conduct of the investigation of complaints under this section shall be the responsibility of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, acting in accordance with the statutory instrument issued under subsection (8) below.

(8) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the ombudsman for the army, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Committee for the Administration of Justice, issue a statutory instrument setting out the procedure for the investigations referred to in subsection (7) above.

(9) The ombudsman for the army shall publish an annual report detailing the number of complaints made in the relevant year, the nature of the complaints made, the way in which such complaints were dealt with, the outcome of each such complaint, and any other matters which may be required under the statutory instrument made under subsection (8) above.

(10) Every annual report issued under subsection (9) above shall contain an assessment of the complaints procedure in place during the year in review and shall contain any recommendations for improvement which the ombudsman for the army judges it appropriate to suggest.

(11) The Secretary of State shall make an order setting out the terms and conditions under which the office of the ombudsman for the army is to be held, subject to subsections (2) and (3) above.'.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause deals with the appointment of an ombudsman for the Army—an independent person who could deal with complaints against Army personnel in Northern Ireland. The Minister will recall that this topic was discussed at some length in Committee, but I make no apology for returning to it. In our view, it is of paramount importance that the security forces—specifically, the Army —in Northern Ireland have such a structure, so that it may be shown beyond any shadow of doubt that many of the complaints levelled against the Army are malicious and untrue. If that can be done by means of independent machinery, the Army's position will be enhanced, and the public's confidence in it will be increased, resulting in an increased flow of information to the security forces generally.
No doubt the Minister agrees that if such an appointment were made the Army would be brought formally into line with the RUC in this respect. Lord Colville devoted a large section of his latest report to the subject of complaints. He pointed out that an effective complaints procedure is essential, for at least two reasons —first, to avoid the creation of more terrorists as a result of counter-terrorist measures; secondly, to ensure that relations with the civilian population are such as to guarantee a ready flow of information to the security forces. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I

intend to quote Lord Colville's report at some length. I apologise for having to do so, but I hope that I shall not be accused of making the mistake of which I accused the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—making selective quotations to support a case.
Lord Colville stressed the importance of this issue. Paragraph 5.51 of his report says:
So long as emergency laws are in force effective complaints procedures must take equal rank with training and sensitive planning, in ensuring that the operations which constitute the campaign against terrorism do not end up by alienating the civilian population.
Paragraph 5.5 states:
The fundamental reason for trying to satisfy the public is that the security forces are there only to bring order according to the law. There is an operational reason to reinforce this".
That reinforces the point that I have already made twice. The report continued:
the majority of crime is reported by the public, and the majority of the solutions depend on information given by the public. Assistance will come more readily from those whose contacts with the security forces are such as to encourage them.
At paragraph 5.7 the report continues:
There is then the battle for hearts and minds. The winning of that is no one-way trade. The armed forces seek to instill confidence through sensitivity and politeness whereas it is greatly to the terrorist's advantage to mar that image.
At paragraph 5.12, Lord Colville quotes from the instructions issued by the commander land forces in 1988 on the consequences of the effective investigation of complaints. The report states:
Effective investigation of complaints may have the following desirable consequences: (a) Justice is done and seen to be done. (b) Good order and military discipline are properly enforced and seen to be so. (c) Public confidence in the armed forces is maintained and improved. (d) False accusations are properly and, if necessary, publicly refuted, thus countering terrorist propaganda and preserving the reputation of the armed forces, individually and collectively.
Lord Colville concludes in paragraph 5.26:
I believe it to be in the public interest, and of great potential value to the security forces as well as the community, that serious thought should now be given to devising acceptable supervisory systems".
I recognise that there are informal mechanisms for the handling of complaints—the Minister referred to some of them in Committee—but the new clause rectifies the anomaly that the police are subject to a statatory procedure while the Army is not. What I have said shows that the new clause is inspired by a suggestion made by Lord Colville—page 22 of the report, paragraph 5.25—that an ombudsman-type official could be responsible for the investigation of complaints against the Army.
In Committee the Minister gave signs of his intention to consider ways of bringing that about. He said:
I said that we intended to return to the matter on Report, and that remains our intention. I did not undertake to return to the matter in Committee because I did not think that we would be in a position to do so, and we are not.
That answer may not give the hon. Gentleman great insight into the thinking of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence"—
that is true—
but I reiterate my assurance on 17 January that we are considering the matter and that when we have something to report we shall return to the House. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the motion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 January 1991; c. 354.]
In the first part of that quotation the Minister made a specific commitment—he said that he intended to return to the matter on Report. In the second part of the quotation, he was a little more evasive and said that the Government


were considering the matter and would return to the House when they had something to report. I am prepared to accept that the Minister intends to present some proposals at some stage, but it would have been far better for all of us if he had been able to present them on Report. We regret that he has not been able to do so, which was one of the primary reasons why we reintroduced the new clause on the ombudsman.
The new clause is designed to probe the Government's present thinking on the procedure. If the Minister deflects our probe or even refuses it and makes it clear that he will reject both our proposal and Lord Colville's thinking on complaints against the armed forces, we shall press the new clause to a Division. I hope that we are not driven to that course of action, but a great deal will depend upon how the Minister responds to the points that I have made.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not quite understand why the word "ombudsman" was used. I am not criticising the official Opposition, because I understand Lord Colville used that word, although he said, "ombudsman-like". The function of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints of maladministration, and such a complaint is usually laid —sometimes by Members of Parliament—against Departments of Government, in this case the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. Such complaints could be made only against Ministry of Defence agents—in this case, the Army—for example, because of damage to a vehicle or a house after or during a search.
The mechanism set out by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) already exists for complaints against individual soldiers, and I should have thought that that was sufficient. I know of many cases in which it has been the instrument for disciplining soldiers who, like all of us, occasionally step out of line when they are in uniform.
Like the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), I noted the point made in an earlier debate on the desirability of common citizenship of the United Kingdom and of avoidance of second-class citizenship anywhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is peculiar that we are now contemplating having second-class treatment for the element of the Army that serves in one part of the United Kingdom.
Wherever it is based, the Army supports the civil authorities. It has been used in support of civil power in this capital city of the United Kingdom. For example, the Special Air Service was used, with great success, to storm the Iranian embassy. The troops in Northern Ireland and in the Ulster Defence Regiment have not chosen to be shot at in the course of their duties. British military personnel have borne and used arms in many places on the continent, notably in West Germany. There too they are in contact in the course of their duties with the civil population. Will this proposed clause be applied to those troops? If not, why not?
To go a little further afield, some of us have noticed that parts of the Army are dealing with civilians in a place called Kuwait and have also been at some considerable risk, and risk of complaint. I understand that some parts of the Army are still in Iraq and no doubt they are doing their best to win the battle for hearts and minds in that country. I have great sympathy with our serving soldiers because of the manifold restrictions already imposed on

them. I doubt that our 1st Armoured Division would have advanced so swiftly across the desert last week if its soldiers had been told by their commander before they started, "Watch it boys: the ombudsman will be looking over your shoulder at all stages," and if they had been warned that they would be court-martialled if they happened to ram an Arab camel in the dead of night.
If we are to have this device in Northern Ireland alone, we should face up to the fact that we need an entirely new force rather than a rotating element of the Army serving there. There must be a special permanent force, presumably a special unit of the Army, perhaps in conjunction with the Ulster Defence Regiment. I hope that no further burdens will be imposed on the soldiers who risk their lives in defence of all of us when they happen to be posted to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: I should like to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). No comparison can be made between an army during a declared war, as in the desert in Kuwait, and an army that fulfils a policing role, as in the north of Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: What about Germany?

Mr. Mallon: Substantial differences occur in Germany compared with the north of Ireland, especially in terms of confrontation and manoeuvres. The policing role that the Army performs in the north of Ireland is, of necessity, of great sensitivity.
Any army is a blunt instrument, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said. Either it has a policing role or it is involved in a war. The Government tell us at great length why the Army is not involved in a war. One need only remember the former Prime Minister's references in a European country to a war in Northern Ireland to recognise the hasty way in which the Government's position was clearly put. The implications are immense and far-reaching, and are not always conducive to solving the problem.
An Army complaints procedure is needed. The present mechanism is not sufficient, because it is not a complaints procedure but merely an informal method. A young person who wishes to complain has three options. First, he can go to the RUC. He will be told that, unless violence was used against him or threatened or a criminal offence was committed, it is not a matter for the RUC. The second option is to go to an Army base. One can imagine the reception that that young person would get when he arrived at the outside gate of any Army base and said that he would like to make a complaint against the Army.
The third option is what is termed the informal choice —to process complaints through Members of Parliament, local councillors and people who have standing in the community, such as clergymen. Such people would consider the case at third hand, which is a difficulty in itself. We cannot deny a proper means of processing legitimate complaints and not provide the necessary means to do that while somewhere in between relying on an informal process and hoping for the best, which is what happens at present.
Difficulties arise for officers in the armed forces. If a complaint involves a disciplinary matter, they can investigate and deal with it speedily and efficiently, as they


do now. As well as being a blunt instrument, an army tends to have a strong discipline base, and its commanders have a strong sense of authority.
It is possible for someone like myself to process a complaint and to receive certain satisfactions because such and such an action was taken against a certain person on a certain date. One accepts that such disciplinary action is used in certain circumstances.
What happens when it is suggested that a complaint should be taken to law? Do the officers try a soldier twice? Is he subjected to the disciplinary process within the Army and an official investigation by the police at the same time? The difficulty is that, in 99 cases out of 100, when there is a threat of or actual violence, invariably there are no witnesses. When that happens, the person who is aggrieved must put his word against that of five or six members of an Army patrol. When the case goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions and he takes a cursory look at it—it is right to be cursory, as there is no supportive evidence—it is stamped "no case".
It is bad for everyone that we do not have a formalised, clearly defined statutory way in which such a complaint can be processed. We should not be glib about this, because it is bad for morale, for people and for those soldiers against whom unfounded complaints are made. I am aware of circumstances in which that happens and, in those cases, I am the first to recognise that that is unjust to the soldier involved. Such cases should not be allowed to stand, but when a genuine complaint is made there must be a proper way in which to proceed with it.
One hon. Member said that he wanted to bring complaints against the armed forces into line with complaints against the police. He should read Lord Colville's report—I referred to it on Monday—which, in implied scathing terms, referred to the success, or lack of success, of the Police Complaints Commission in the north of Ireland. From more than 400 complaints to that commission, not one disciplinary charge resulted. That tests the credibility of anyone who knows the tinder box that is the north or Ireland and the sensitivities that exist.
There is something wrong with that complaints procedure, but it is not the fault of the legislation. I was in the House when that legislation was passed. It is good, and it has laid down procedures to ensure that there is a full and adequate investigation of a complaint and adequate redress. Is it not time to consider the 400-odd cases that have gone before the commission and to ask what is wrong? Lord Colville's report contains a strong implied criticism of and comparison between the effectiveness of the police complaints procedures in England and Wales as opposed to those in the north of Ireland.
The Secretary of State should look carefully at the Police Complaints Commission in the north of Ireland, although I accept that it is a bit late to do that, because new appointments have been made. Suffice it to say the facts speak Tot themselves.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for the way in which he introduced his new clause. He did so in the same measured and responsible manner as he acted in Committee. No one objected to the references to Lord Colville—indeed, the hon. Gentleman did the House a service.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) repeated the arguments he put in Committee and affirmed his belief that some new measures are necessary.

I understood the point that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made. Bearing in mind his typical grace, I know that he will not mind if I do not follow him into the sands of the desert and the autobahns of Germany.
I shall start in the spirit with which I tried to conduct proceedings in Committee by seeking common ground in the House. I am sure that it is common ground that the public have a right to expect the highest standards of behaviour from police officers and members of the armed forces. Activity or actions falling short of those standards will never be condoned.
The Government believe that anyone who has a genuine cause for complaint about the conduct of a police officer or a member of the armed forces should use the existing procedures for the investigation of such complaints. It was against that background that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House on Second Reading that the Government were paying special attention to what Lord Colville and indeed others have had to say on this particular subject. He said that we would return to the subject as the Bill progressed. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South reminded the House, we returned to the issue in Committee.
As Lord Colville observed in his review, the Independent Commission for Police Complaints was established by the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in order to provide an independent element in the scrutiny of complaints against the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In Lord Colville's view, which the Government share, the commission is now making a valuable contribution, and should continue to be the main vehicle for reinforcing public confidence in the handling of complaints involving police officers. The commission has wide powers. As well as supervising the investigation of all complaints alleging death or serious injury, it can decide to supervise the investigation of any complaint. It does that to good effect and I understand that it intends to supervise even more of these cases in the future.
Ensuring that complaints against the armed forces are investigated promptly and thoroughly is no less important, as the military authorities fully recognise. In recent years, as Lord Colville has pointed out, the Army has therefore consistently sought to improve the way in which complaints are dealt with. The latest in a series of improvements will be the establishment, next month, at Army headquarters in Northern Ireland of a central complaints office to improve the monitoring and handling of complaints against the armed forces. I am sure that the House welcomes that initiative.
However, such measures do not of themselves answer Lord Colville's arguments in favour of bringing the complaints process under some form of independent scrutiny. Allegations of criminal misconduct by the armed forces are already, and will remain, subject to independent investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That is an important point for all hon. Members to bear in mind.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South reminded the House that in Committee I said that I intended to return to this matter on Report, and I now propose to fulfil that commitment. The Government have considered most carefully the arguments advanced by Lord Colville, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and others, including members of the Committee who expressed their


view when the matter was debated there. Therefore, I am pleased to tell the House that we have decided in principle to introduce an independent element into the scrutiny of the armed forces' procedures for handling those complaints which fall short of allegations of criminal misconduct.
This matter falls primarily within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As I told the Committee, we have accordingly been discussing the matter with our ministerial colleagues in that Department, including how to give effect to our decision. As hon. Members will recognise, the subject is important and some care must be taken in drawing up proper arrangements. This will take a little more time, and my noble Friend the Paymaster General will therefore return to the subject in another place.
The Government are confident that, for the reasons set out by Lord Colville and others, this measure—in addition to all the other improvements in complaints systems either introduced in recent years or about to be introduced—will be of value to the community. It will also be of value to the armed forces in helping to build and retain the confidence and support of all men and women of good will from both traditions in Northern Ireland.
The Government are already addressing the important issues raised by the new clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South feels that his probing clause has been satisfactorily met. It would have been convenient to the House if we had been able to bring forward the specific ideas that we have in mind. That has not proved possible, but at least I have made the commitment in principle. I hope that that will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman and that, consequently, he will not press his new clause to a Division.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I welcome the Minister's final comments, but before I speak at greater length on what he had to say I must comment on what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said. Like many of his hon. Friends from the Province, he fails to distinguish between the Army acting in its usual role—he highlighted the warfare in the middle east theatre over the past few weeks—and in its role in support of the civil security force in the Province. There is a huge difference between the two roles.
I express no opinion on the recent war in the middle east, and clearly the restrictions that we seek to impose on the Army when it operates in the Province would not, could not and should not be imposed in an acknowledged theatre of war. But when the security forces are there to support and buttress the civilian security force, it is our duty to ensure that the Army is as nearly as possible subject to the same degree of control and scrutiny and to the same adherence to the law of the land as we expect from our police forces, whether in the Province or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the point in his penultimate sentence. He implied that one could not expect soldiers from a unit which had not been accustomed to service in Northern Ireland to behave as though they were local bobbies on the beat, and I accept that. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that

some years ago, when I had the freedom and privilege to drive my own car, soldiers belonging to a regiment which was withdrawn recently from the British Army of the Rhine, at a time when there was more tension in Germany than there is nowadays, would haul me out of my car at least three times a week, often in pouring rain, and frisk me, spreadeagled across the car. The car was searched and they would address me in terms that I shall not use in the House. It never occurred to me to lodge a complaint against any of those soldiers because, being an ex-service man myself, I recognised that they were not trained in community relations. They were trained to be the spearhead of the British Army of the Rhine. I hope that I have made the point that if an element of the 1st Armoured Division should, in the course of the rotation of units, be brought to Northern Ireland to do duty, it would almost need a special induction course. It could not be expected to behave like a London bobby.

Mr. Marshall: I shall not be tempted to follow all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but the House realises that soldiers going to the Province for the first time will have a naivety that one would not expect from soldiers who have been there on more than one visit. The right hon. Gentleman must know that that is recognised by the Army authorities. The Army tries to teach such soldiers how to behave in a civilian role. I presume that it does it as well as it possibly can, although one might argue that it could be better done.

Mr. Molyneaux: The Army will have to make allowances for the fact that the offender was serving in the Province for the first time, and could not be expected to behave in the same way as a soldier who had been there for two years.

Mr. Marshall: I have already stressed that there is clearly a difference between the inexperienced soldier who is serving in the Province for the first time and the service man who has been there on more than one occasion. Nevertheless, inexperience does not excuse certain types of behaviour.
The Army acknowledge that first-time soldiers need to be educated as to the way they should operate in a civilian theatre. It knows more than anyone else that without the support and co-operation of the civilian population its role will be made more difficult by an order of magnitude than would otherwise be the case. That is why the Army emphasises the need for civility, but that point is one that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley sometimes fails to understand.
I welcome the establishment of a central complaints office within the next few weeks, and the Minister's decision in principle to establish also an element of independent security in respect of allegations against the armed forces. I appreciate that there are caveats and that discussions must take place. I am sure that the Minister realises that there must be fuller debate on that issue both in another place and in this House at the appropriate time.
Is it the Government's intention to introduce in another place amendments to the Bill?

Dr. Mawhinney: indicated assent.

Mr. Marshall: So it is the Government's intention to introduce further amendments to cover the points that we discussed, which we will then be able to debate when the Bill returns to this House.

Dr. Mawhinney: indicated assent.

Mr. Marshall: I am pleased that the Minister nodded more than once, as though to tell me to resume my place as quickly as possible.

Dr. Mawhinney: Our present intention is as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

ORGANISATIONS IN RECEIPT OF PUBLIC FUNDS

'Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an organisation in receipt of public funds is furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation, he may seek an order from the High Court permitting him to terminate such public funding.'.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with an issue which has been a matter of some contention in the Province for a number of years, but more particularly in recent months in respect of a specific case. It would provide judicial control over the Secretary of State's power to end the public funding of organisations that he believes promote the interests of proscribed organisations. The intention is to limit the present arbitrary and unfair system, rather than to make it easier for proscribed organisations to obtain access to public funds. I wish to make that clear.
The present power of the Secretary of State is exercised under the terms of policy set out by the present Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), in his written answer of 27 June 1985. It is not my intention to read out that answer, but the House will recognise that it gives the Secretary of State wide powers and wide discretion to stop financing certain organisations.
Our new clause recognises the fact that it may be necessary to stop funding if it might be of benefit to proscribed organisations. However—this is where our clause differs from Government policy—it places the exercise of such power on a statutory basis and provides for independent scrutiny of the power by the courts.
As the Secretary of State recognises, under the existing system there is no right of redress, despite the severe consequences that groups, individuals or communities may suffer if funds are removed. Appeals can only be made to, and heard by, the Secretary of State—the very person who made the decision in the first place. Such a practice creates an image of arbitrary and, in some cases, unfair government.
A few moments ago, I referred to a specific case—the Glor na Gael affair—which will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State. For whatever reason, he removed funding from that Irish language group. Unfortunately for him, no one—including, apparently, the RUC—believes that his decision was either sensible or correct.
The present system makes it difficult to reverse such decisions, which are essentially political, without causing embarrassment to the Government, and, as we all know, no Government likes deliberate political embarrassments. The new clause would provide judicial scrutiny before such decisions were taken. We recognise that that is not a

perfect solution, but at least it would reduce the arbitrary nature of such decisions, while meeting any Government objections based on security grounds, since the flexibility of a system of judicial review is such that it can be conducted without any security risks.
I commend the new clause in the hope that it will find favour with the Government. Even if the Secretary of State cannot accept it as it stands, I hope that he will reflect the bipartisanship shown by his Minister of State in our previous debate and will be able at least to accept the spirit and intent of the new clause.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: How does the Secretary of State form his opinions on these organisations? Does he receive advice or information from someone or some group who may be against the activities of such an organisation? They might be motivated by petty jealousy, because the organisation in question is maintaining and making progress in community and social activities. Such individuals or groups may have political or other aspirations and may believe that they are reduced because of the beneficial activities of such an organisation.
What appeals can such an organisation make against an adverse opinion or complaint by the Secretary of State? Is machinery to be set up to investigate such complaints?

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) illustrates the weakness of the new clause. It would transfer responsibility from the Secretary of State to a High Court judge with no rules, motivation or purposes, and without limiting the judge's discretion in any way. It has been admitted that the decisions concerned involve political considerations. Are we content to transfer responsibility for them to a judge who, for these purposes, would be superior to the Secretary of State, who is himself responsible to Parliament? That is absurd. The new clause is fundamentally misconceived.

Mr. Trimble: I share the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I think that the new clause would cause more problems than exist now.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned an Irish language organisation from which funding had been withdrawn. It is interesting to note that that organisation subsequently sought support from the Irish Government—unsuccessfully; I do not know what that implies. Another interesting fact, which the hon. Gentleman failed to mention, is that it applied for a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision, and failed in that as well.
I think that what the hon. Member for Leicester, South said was inaccurate. The existing law provides for the challenging of decisions to withdraw funding made by the Secretary of State or others. Applications can be made for judicial reviews, and, if an organisation can show that the Secretary of State had arrived at his decision unreasonably, a remedy, albeit limited, is available.
How would the court proceed if the existing judicial review procedure were replaced by new clause 15? Under the new clause,
Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an organisation … is furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation, he may seek an order from the High Court".
What does the High Court do then? Is it bound to grant the order? Must it consider whether to grant it, and, if so,


on what evidence must it proceed? How can such procedures be adopted, given that the Secretary of State may be in receipt of confidential information?
I hope that I am not misquoting the hon. Member for Leicester, South—if I am inadvertently misleading the House, no doubt he will correct me—but I believe that he said that the flexibility of the judicial review system is such that it can be implemented without any security risk. What does that mean in this context? Does it mean that the Secretary of State's opinion will be conclusive, allowing him not to divulge any information that would carry a security risk?
The new clause refers to
furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation".
Proscribed organisations have many aims. I believe that one of the IRA's aims is the promotion of the Gaelic language. Does this mean that funds should be withdrawn from all organisations that promote the Gaelic language?

Mr. Brooke: This novel measure seeks to substitute the judgment of the court for that of the Secretary of State in a matter that is manifestly the domain of the executive —as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) pointed out.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was concerned about the manner in which the Secretary of State exercises his discretion in discharging his responsibility to protect public funds where there is a grave risk that the provision of support would assist a paramilitary organisation, directly or indirectly. He did not quote the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State—who is now Foreign Secretary—on 27 June 1985, and I shall not do so in full. The heart of that answer was in the words
However, I am satisfied, from information available to me.
This is a matter properly for the Government, not the courts.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the courts have acknowledged that judges should not make decisions on policy. Lord Diplock, in Council of Civil Service Unions v. The Minister for the Civil Service in 1984 —a case to which, ironically and coincidentally, reference was made this afternoon in the debate on the Employment Protection (Government Communications Headquarters) Bill—made that clear when he said that the application of Government policy involves the weighing of competing policy considerations—
a balancing exercise which Judges by their upbringing and experience are ill qualified to perform.
To give the courts the role that the new clause suggests would conflict with our well established and sensible separation of powers. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann said, the new clause does not make clear what the High Court should take into account in considering an application by the Secretary of State for an order permitting him to terminate public funding. It would be most unusual if the court were empowered to examine the merits of the Secretary of State's opinion and substitute its judgment for that of the Secretary of State should it see fit.
Hon. Members can be assured that all decisions to withhold public funds in line with current Government policy are taken by the Secretary of State after most careful consideration.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The new clause would enable the Secretary of State to seek an order from the court. Under the law in Northern Ireland, is it possible for an organisation whose public funds have been terminated by the Secretary of State to appeal to the court?

Mr. Brooke: I shall deal with that later, but there is the right of appeal to myself in the first instance.
Decisions to withhold public funds are taken by the Secretary of State after the most careful consideration. The policy is even-handed and has been applied in respect of republican and loyalist paramilitary interests. Ignoring the four cases in which the decisions were reversed after fresh evidence was put before the Secretary of State, the pattern of the withholding of public funds shows that just under 60 per cent. have been in connection with republican paramilitary groups and just over 40 per cent. with loyalist groups.
Political opinion is not an issue. Decisions are subject to review and can be changed in the light of a change in circumstances. That is what happened in the four cases in which the decisions were reversed. That is not an answer to the legal question that I was asked but it is a response to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker).
It is not possible, for security reasons, to divulge the information on which decisions are based. I do not accept that the introduction of a court in a supervisory capacity, as proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester, South, is appropriate or would lead to an improvement in the quality of decision making. Well established arrangements for the judicial review of administrative decisions—this answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)—recognise the different responsibilities of Ministers and the courts. Any organisation that considers that it has been unfairly treated by a decision of the Secretary of State can apply to the courts for a review of the decision, as happened recently. I see no reason to introduce any further judicial scrutiny.
It is not practicable—this answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, North—either at present or under the proposed new clause to advise an organisation of the precise grounds for the Secretary of State's belief that withdrawal of grant is justified. Such decisions are taken on the basis of confidential security advice, the disclosure of which could reveal to those engaged in unlawful activities involving paramilitary organisations the extent of the information known about them, how it is evaluated and possibly its source, with consequential risk to those involved in its procurement.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South referred to the case of Glora na Gael. The decision to withdraw funding from the west Belfast committee and the procedure by which such decisions are taken are subject to judicial review. The hon. Member for Upper Bann thought that it had been turned down, but the case is still under review.
In those circumstances, the House will understand if I am constrained in what I say on such matters. I do not accept that the present arrangements are unreasonable or inappropriate; nor am I prepared to be drawn on the detail of the arrangements or the nature of the information relied upon.
In view of those overall considerations, I must ask the hon. Member for Leicester, South to withdraw his new clause or the House to vote against it.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I and my party are naturally disappointed with the Secretary of State's reply. Within a matter of minutes, we shall be showing our dissatisfaction by supporting our new clause in the Lobby. I ask the House to support us in that action.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that, in his view—I recognise that it is his view only—our new clause is to be described as "absurd". His reason for using that word was that he claimed that only the Secretary of State and only the Government can make political decisions. There is no disagreement between us on that point. Politicians and Governments are there to make political decisions. If the Secretary of State was to come to the Dispatch Box to say, "I have made this decision on political grounds; these are my reasons for doing that," there would be no disagreement between the two sides, because I recognise that that is the nature of politicians and of Governments.
However, that is not the point at issue. These judgments are not supposed to be based on political considerations; they are supposed to be based on security considerations. In those circumstances, we have every right to say that, if it is a matter of judgment and of balance, a judge and the system of judicial review are able to make that decision and to judge that balance. We are not asking the judges——

Mr. Stanbrook: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Orpington is shaking his head, but we are not asking the judges to make political decisions; we are asking them to decide whether, on balance, they believe that the Secretary of State has acted fairly or unfairly when weighing up the security risks to make his decision.
The altercations between myself and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) are increasing. He always accuses me of misrepresenting his case and of making half a case myself. I tend to believe that my assertions about him are always correct and that his assertions about me are always wrong. He is clearly wrong in the specific point that he has made in this debate. The Secretary of State supports and buttresses my point when he reminds the hon. Gentleman that the case of Glora na Gael is still in the process of judicial review.
In case he has forgotten, I remind the hon. Member for Upper Bann that the Secretary of State has made it even more difficult for that organisation to defend itself and to put its case to the judicial review because the right hon. Gentleman has introduced a public interest immunity certificate, which is signed by him, the Secretary of State, and which has prevented that organisation or its counsel from gaining access to specific papers that it believes would assist it——

Mr. Brooke: The case is sub judice.

Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State reminds me that the case is sub judice. I am referring not to the details of the case, but to the actions that the Secretary of State has taken which make it more difficult for that organisation to present its case at the judicial review. The Secretary of State has issued a public interest immunity certificate which refuses the organisation access to certain documents which it thinks would support or further its case at judicial review. I think that the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in the specific instance is spurious.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as he prefaced his remarks by comments, which I thought inappropriate, about what I had said. The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question which I put to him: if his clause is adopted, and if the Secretary of State has to make an application to the court, on what basis is the court to proceed? I am grateful to the Secretary of State for pointing out the stage which the case has reached. There is in existence a judicial review procedure——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Trimble: I was asking the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) to state how the court should proceed. Will it accept the opinion of the Secretary of State? Will it ask itself whether that opinion was made unreasonably, in which case it is doing exactly the same as the existing judicial review procedure, or will it examine the merits of the case itself? If it is examining the merits of the case——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an interjection in the middle of a speech.

Mr. Trimble: I think that I have said enough to make my point clear.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman always says more than enough. The answer clearly is that the judge would decide whether the Secretary of State's action was reasonable in the light of all the evidence, based upon security considerations, that the Secretary of State had available at the time. I do not see anything wrong with that.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is not the point that is included in the new clause. The new clause says:
Where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an organisation in receipt of public funds is furthering the aims of a proscribed organisation".
No decision is made; the Secretary of State is simply of the opinion, and he then may seek an order from the High Court. In other words, the whole decision is transferred to the High Court. It is not a question of confirming, or of some sort of review, under the wording of the new clause. The new clause is talking not about judicial review but about transferring responsibility for the decision from the Secretary of State to a judge. That is entirely and utterly wrong, and I still think that it is absurd.

Mr. Marshall: I am not pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman still thinks that the new clause is absurd. We are seeking to reverse the present procedure. If the new clause was adopted, before the Secretary of State took a decision, he, his ministerial colleagues and his officials would have to realise, in the light of all the security considerations available at the time, that any decision they took was likely to be upheld or turned down by the judge. The position seems to be clear.
The Secretary of State repeated many of the points put forward by the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He seemed to imply that many of his decisions were taken on political rather than security grounds. I am sure that he did not


mean to give that impression, but he made the point. I accept that he makes the decisions not on political but on security grounds.

Mr. Brooke: I gave the statistics so that the House might have a clear picture that we were talking about an even-handed policy addressed to paramilitary organisations. I think that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has not answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). As the new clause is drawn, he is asking the judiciary to take on an executive role which in the past it has been disinclined to take.

Mr. Marshall: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.] I am receiving advice from all quarters. Perhaps I could put it to the Secretary of State this way. Our view remains that the present system must be changed. There must be a movement away from the present arbitrary and unfair system. Our view is and remains—and we shall press it in the Lobby—that the new clause represents a step in the right direction. If the Secretary of State says that there are inadequacies in it, I make this offer to him. If he is prepared to support us in the Lobby or even to accept the spirit of the new clause, we will sit down with him and draft a new clause which meets his criticisms and those of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I see that the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept that compromise, so we intend to press the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 150.

Division No. 88]
[10.05 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Illsley, Eric


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kennedy, Charles


Beckett, Margaret
Lamond, James


Bellotti, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Bermingham, Gerald
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Canavan, Dennis
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McGrady, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McMaster, Gordon


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mallon, Seamus


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Fearn, Ronald
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Galloway, George
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Grocott, Bruce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Turner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Vaz, Keith


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)





Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Alexander, Richard
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Amess, David
Lord, Michael


Amos, Alan
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
McCrea, Rev William


Ashby, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Maclean, David


Beggs, Roy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Madel, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Malins, Humfrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Maples, John


Brazier, Julian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Miller, Sir Hal


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David


Conway, Derek
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Monro, Sir Hector


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mudd, David


Cran, James
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Needham, Richard


Day, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Evennett, David
Norris, Steve


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Favell, Tony
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Forman, Nigel
Patnick, Irvine


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pawsey, James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Forth, Eric
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Redwood, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Franks, Cecil
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Freeman, Roger
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


French, Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Gale, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Goodlad, Alastair
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gregory, Conal
Speller, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Ground, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hannam, John
Stern, Michael


Harris, David
Stevens, Lewis


Haselhurst, Alan
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hawkins, Christopher
Summerson, Hugo


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hill, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hunter, Andrew
Thorne, Neil


Irvine, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Janman, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Trimble, David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Watts, John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wells, Bowen


Knowles, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Knox, David
Whitney, Ray


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Widdecombe, Ann






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 17

LETHAL FORCE

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make a code of practice in connection with the use of lethal force by police officers and members of Her Majesty's Forces in dealing with suspected terrorists; and Schedule(Code of practice on lethal force) shall be the first code under this section.

(2) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 50 of this Act shall apply to a code under this section as they apply to a code under that section.

(3) A failure on the part of a police officer or a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of such a code shall constitute an offence punishable on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.'. —[Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 39, a new schedule—Lethal force—

GENERAL RULES

1. In all situations the minimum force necessary must be used. Firearms must only be used as the last resort. Where their use is unavoidable they must be used with restraint, in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved, and so as to minimise damage and injury and to respect and preserve human life.

2. Superior officers shall ensure that members of the security forces are equipped with appropriate self-defensive equipment and appropriate non-lethal incapacitating weapons with a view to restraining the use of weapons capable of causing death or serious injury. Superior officers shall be responsible for any breach of these rules by members of the security forces under their command in cases in which they did not take all measures in their power to prevent such a breach.

Opening fire

3. Firearms must always be made safe. No live rounds are to be carried in the breech of a firearm and automatic weapons are not to be made ready for firing unless they are about to be fired or an express order to that effect has been given by a superior officer.

4. Firearms shall not be used against a person except in the following circumstances—
(1) in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury;
(2) to prevent the commission of a particularly serious crime involving a grave threat to life;
(3) to effect the arrest of a person immediately presenting such a threat.
In all these cases firearms must not be used unless there is no other way to prevent the danger and it is strictly unavoidable to protect life.

5. The following are examples of acts endangering life, depending always on the particular circumstances—
(1) firing or being about to fire a weapon;
(2) planting, detonating or throwing an explosive device.

6. In cases where the use of firearms is unavoidable the following rules must be observed—
(1) only aimed shots are to be fired;
(2) no more rounds than are necessary to prevent the danger referred to in rule 4 above are to be fired;
(3) all reasonable precautions are to be taken not to injure anyone other than the person presenting that danger.

Warning

7. Where the use of firearms is justified in accordance with these rules members of the security forces shall identify themselves and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would expose others or themselves to undue risk or would be clearly pointless or inappropriate in the circumstances.

8. The words "Army/Police: stop or I fire" or words to similar effect are to be used.

Medical attention

9. Assistance and medical aid are to be rendered to any person injured at the earliest possible moment.

Informing relatives

10. Relatives or close friends of any person injured or affected by the use of firearms shall be notified at the earliest possible moment.

Reporting

11. In all cases where firearms are used a report on the circumstances shall be made promptly to a superior officer.

Access

12. The police shall have immediate access to a member of the security forces who has used or is reasonably suspected of having used lethal force.'.

Mr. McNamara: In Committee, the use of lethal force by the security forces was considered on several occasions. There has been a continuing debate on the issue—the matter was raised when last we had a full review of the Act in the previous Parliament. The new clause and the amendment attempt to deal with subsequent developments in the debate.
Amendment No. 39 seeks to complement the codes of practice issued under sections 48 and 49 of the Act by including guidance to the security forces on circumstances in which it is legitimate to use force. Given the controversies over the use of force by the security forces, and the implications for public confidence in the security forces, such a guide would help to clarify the nature of security force operations.
In his penultimate report, Lord Colville stated that the major difficulty for the administration of justice stemmed from deaths caused by the security forces. We have only to think of the Armagh killings and the Whiterock bookies shop case and other incidents to understand the passions and problems involved. Large sections of society believe that the security forces are immune from the law, and a number of killings by the security forces are not regarded as unavoidable or representing the legitimate use of force.
The new clause and the amendment are a response to the concern expressed by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights last February. The new schedule copies the draft code of practice proposed by SACHR. It says that it is a "tentative draft" to provide a focus for proper consideration of the issue, but if the Government were to accept the principle of what we are urging we should be happy for them to produce a better


draft. The key elements of the draft code suggested by SACHR are as follows. The minimum possible force should be deployed, force should be used only when it is unavoidable, and senior officers should be held responsible for the actions of their subordinates if they permit violations of the code of practice.
The first principle differs from the existing provision in so far as it replaces the concept of reasonable force with the concept of minimum force. Such a standard would facilitate public understanding of the limits of legitimate use of force by the security forces. Using force only when it is unavoidable also differs from existing practice in so far as the existing law allows for the use of lethal force to apprehend a person who cannot otherwise be arrested. The logic behind it is that the failure to arrest an individual may allow that person to escape and commit further crimes of violence at a later date. While that is understandable, the practical consequences have been damaging as it has become lawful to use lethal force to apprehend a person who, it subsequently becomes apparent, is not a terrorist. The code of practice is designed to prevent recurrence of such incidents by ensuring that firearms can be used to effect an arrest only if there is immediate danger of a grave threat to life.
The purpose of making superiors responsible for avoidable breaches of the code of practice is to provide an incentive to maintain high standards of discipline. In addition, given that the preparation of an operation by superior officers may have a substantial influence on the behaviour of subordinates during an operation, the code of practice considers the responsibility of those who plan and those who conduct operations.
Paragraph 12 of the schedule deals with a problem that has caused some concern. When members of the security forces are involved in incidents where lethal force is used, RUC officers investigating such operations have experienced some difficulty gaining access to carry out questioning. The schedule would require access to be granted, thus eliminating any suggestion that such incidents are not properly investigated by the authorities.
Lord Colville has paid great attention to this issue over several years. In it report on the concept of the taking of human life, the other place also paid attention to the proposals, some based on the Australian code of practice, made by Lord Colville. Our proposal is based essentially on the recent proposals of SACHR. The code embodies what it is seeking and what it believes, in the interests human rights, should be adopted in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that the schedule in the amendment setting out the code of practice is based on the tentative views of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and it says that its proposals are based in part on a draft resolution prepared by a United Nations body. That makes one a little concerned—I say a little because in some respects I support the objective behind the new clause. There is merit in having a code of guidance on the use of potentially lethal force and in spelling out in more detail the rather old terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. That is the ordinary criminal law base from which the security forces operate in the use of potentially lethal force, in all circumstances, not just in the emergency provisions.
An examination of the draft code shows that there are problems, which SACHR acknowledged. Comparing its document with the yellow card, it states:
the yellow card expressly permits the use of lethal force to effect an arrest of someone who has just killed or injured another person, where there is no other way to make an arrest, while the UN Basic Principles permit the use of lethal force to effect an arrest only where the person continues to present an imminent threat of death or serious injury and where less extreme means are insufficient. It should be noted that this difference is probably an accurate statement of the current judicial interpretation of the terms of section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967".
The code is not an accurate statement of the law.
Paragraph 7 of SACHR's report—which I think hon.
Members received—states:
In the second place the UN Basic Principles include more detailed provisions in respect of the responsibility of superior officers for the actions of their subordinates. There is no such provision in the yellow card. This again reflects a distinction which is inherent in the prevailing judicial interpretation … in … section 3 of the Criminal Law Act.
SACHR acknowledges that its code does not correspond with the law.
If the code were enacted, we should have to change section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. If we enacted the code at present, we would be inaccurate and would give effect to something much narrower than section 3. Under new clause 17, failure to comply with the code will be an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for two years. The code is inappropriate. I have great difficulty understanding how one could comply with it.
According to paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule,
No live rounds are to be carried in the breech
unless a weapon is about to be fired. In that way, members of the security forces will give terrorists that extra vital second or two that it takes to make a weapon ready for use. Paragraph 4 states:
Firearms shall not be used against a person except in the following circumstances—
(1) in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury;
(2) to prevent the commission of a particularly serious crime involving a grave threat to life".
How does one work out that the commission of a serious crime will involve a "grave threat to life"? How does one work out that there will be
imminent threat of death or serious injury"?
The paragraph refers to "serious" injury rather than just injury. A soldier is expected to deal with those complex issues in the agony of the moment, when a terrorist may use lethal force without the slightest compunction. Having decided that his action comes within those provisions, he is not to use force unless he gives the warning, "Army: stop or I fire", or words to that effect. The proposed schedule states that those words "are to be used". If they are not used, it will mean a failure to comply, which is an offence punishable by imprisonment for a certain term. That is not an appropriate measure.
I am not familiar with United Nations proceedings, so I do not understand why the United Nations document is only a draft resolution and did not proceed further perhaps it was because it was unrealistic. I hesitate to add to my criticisms of SACHR on other occasions, but I am not surprised that it adopted an unrealistic set of principles. SACHR does not have the competence to draw up such a code because it does not understand the position that soldiers and policemen will face. Although SACHR pointed out the difference betweent the code and the law,


it did not give due weight to the fact that under the law soldiers and policemen are under a duty to arrest persons whom they believe to be law breakers. They must use such force as reasonable to achieve that arrest. The code appears to weaken the duty on the police and the Army. The net effect will be that persons guilty of crime, or those whom the security forces suspect to be guilty, will go free.
I know that tragic mistakes have been made in Northern Ireland which have affected all sides of the community. Sometimes one wonders about the mistakes that generate concern and the principles that operate in such circumstances.
10.30 pm
No one likes to see mistakes made, but they are unavoidable. The recent conflict in the Gulf has served to show that in a war, or in a situation where arms are used, mistakes will be made. When those mistakes occur, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate responsibility for them rests with those who have created the violence. When members of the security forces act negligently and incorrectly and mistakenly kill others, we must not forget that the ultimate responsibility lies with the terrorist organisations.
Although I feel some sympathy with the concept of a code of practice, the present code of practice is not good. I do not like the provision in subsection (3) of the new clause to make that code of practice legally enforceable with criminal sanctions. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause or the schedule.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). If one looks at the current situation in Northern Ireland realistically, one must recognise that the schedule would put the terrorist at a tremendous advantage compared with the security forces.
I do not believe that the House appreciates the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. A close friend of mine is approaching the end of his life in the Royal Victoria hospital. I cannot go to visit him without three Land Rovers of police and three Land Rovers of soldiers. I was speaking to another clergyman who also visits that hospital and he goes there in the same way. We are up against a serious situation in Northern Ireland.
Members of the security forces seek to provide protection and to defend the community against terrorism. If they were not allowed to draw their guns unless a superior officer tells them to do so, and so on, those people would have no defence and would be shot down. Terrorists will look upon the code of practice as a magna calla for success. We must be realistic.
I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann that there should be such a code of conduct, but it must be realistic in view of the terrorist threat. The code of practice is unrealistic. Members of the security forces may as well not be armed if they are unable to defend themselves and those who need to be defended. The code of practice envisaged in the new clause would make it impossible for members of the security forces to provide such protection from the current terrorist threat that we are up against.

Mr. Canavan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who moved the new clause.
We all agree that there is far too much use of lethal force in Northern Ireland and that there is too much killing. Both sides of the House deplore the use of force by

paramilitary organisations. We should also deplore the unjustified use of force by members of the security forces. Such unjustified use of force by the security forces is even worse in a sense than the use of lethal force by terrorist organisations. When the security forces resort to the unjustified use of lethal force, they are not just placing themselves at the same level as the terrorists they are supposed to be combating, but reducing if not eradicating respect for law and order. That can have serious repercussions in any society.
Sadly, over the past 20 years or more, there have been far too many instances of the use of unjustified force by members of the security forces. Hon. Members have said that mistakes are made, but we have a responsibility to try to create a legislative framework that will minimise the possibility of mistakes which may result in people being wrongfully killed. The account of former Assistant Chief Constable Stalker and his evidence points to a shoot-to-kill policy by the RUC. The Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment have killed people in circumstances which, to say the least, have been questionable.
Quite apart from those killed by the use of what might be called conventional weaponry, some people have been killed by plastic bullets fired by the security forces. We should not lose sight of that. Three or four years ago, I introduced a Bill that sought to abolish the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom. At that time, the statistics showed that about 15 people had been lethally injured by plastic or rubber bullets. Most of them were children or young people who by no stretch of the imagination could have been described as suspected terrorists. Some of them were killed by plastic bullets fired at point blank range.
I do not know whether amendment No. 39 covers plastic bullets. I suspect that they might be covered, because that amendment refers to people "about to fire a weapon" and mentions "an explosive device".
Hon. Members spoke about the yellow card and the existing code of conduct, which may or may not be observed in all circumstances. It is plain that the code of practice is grossly inadequate, so we should accept the new clause and its related schedule.

Mr. Mallon: I invariably shudder when I hear the word "accident" used in relation to lethal weapons. I vividly remember an occasion when Mr. Gerry Adams spoke on behalf of the organisation that he leads after a baby had been shot in Belfast. He pontificated to the world and said there would always be accidents when firearms were used, but he offered his organisation's apologies to the baby's mother and father and to all concerned for the death of the child. That is appalling. It is also appalling to use the word "accidents", especially in relation to circumstances in which there were other alternatives.
Public concern in the north of Ireland has made a clear distinction down through the years between a soldier, perhaps under threat from a sniper or a sudden movement, acting instinctively and using his weapon, and those incidents which have become issues of great contention, almost all of which happened during a concerted effort by the armed forces—in other words, when they were involved in a specific manoeuvre which would itself have made possible an arrest with the minimum use of force, not a matter of being overpowered or of superior fire power


coming from those whom the armed forces might have intended to arrest. In the real shoot-to-kill incidents, those people were unarmed.
If we look at the trend through the years, we see that not only have such incidents arisen during a manoeuvre, but they have been accompanied by erroneous intelligence. Almost invariably, when there is a controversial incident, one finds that the Army personnel involved were pumped up with adrenalin as a result of intelligence which ultimately proved faulty. I can be specific about that. We have only to look at the last three serious incidents in the north of Ireland to see that grossly faulty intelligence was at the root of them.
The problem is that, once an Army patrol is given intelligence and is primed to believe that, at a certain place and time and in a certain way, it will be facing dangerous and heavily armed people, the men in that patrol will naturally be in an aggressive frame of mind. When they are working on crucially faulty intelligence, the guilt lies with those who presented them with that intelligence and the direction under which they are operating. That is the substantial difference between what are now known in the north of Ireland as shoot-to-kill incidents and other incidents in which people have been killed as a result of other circumstances.
I remember clearly in my constituency when a bus

driver was shot at the permanent checkpoint in Middletown as a result of a conversation that he was having with a member of the security forces. Does one class that as a shoot-to-kill incident? That was a tragic circumstance for that man and his family, and for the young soldier involved. But when people have been stopped and searched and it has been established that they are not in possession of weapons and within a short time and less than 100 yards they are shot dead, one has to ask substantial and serious questions. Therein lies the difference.
I accept some of the criticisms of the new clause and schedule. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) himself acknowledges how difficult it is to draft with a high degree of accuracy a schedule that meets every situation. Nevertheless, I support the schedule, because I do not accept the Gerry Adams thesis that in a war—we talked earlier about the use of that dangerous term—there will always be accidents. That argument plays right into the hands of people such as Mr. Adams, who spuriously apologised for the killing of a little child some years ago.
The new clause is the nearest that we have come to facing a problem that the Bill does not address, and I hope that it will be supported on the ground that a substantial change is needed.

Rev. William McCrea: I oppose the new clause. We have seen tonight that there is no shortage of armchair critics who know little about facing terrorists and what it is for a young man to go out to defend the innocent people of a community and risk being shot at any and every corner.
It is easy for hon. Members who sit in the comfort of the House and do not have to share the experiences of our soldiers, UDR members, police and reserves, who have to face the terrorist threat in our community. It is disgraceful to link our security personnel and their responses to anything that has come from the lips of the hypocritical Gerry Adams. That is not worthy of any further reference.
Some hon. Members—perhaps one cannot blame them for this, because they are far removed from the situation —seem to think that we in Ulster are in the midst of a picnic rather than in the midst of cruel warfare. Irrespective of whether the Government want to face this fact, the IRA has openly declared war on the British establishment and the British Ulster people. Sinn Fein means "Ourselves Alone'—and that certainly does not mean the British Ulster man or woman.
We are facing a bloodthirsty animal in the IRA terrorist. One might also think—if one attaches any credence to some of the remarks made a few moments ago —that our security forces are on the rampage, looking for innocent victims to shoot to kill, and that they have not performed their duties with great honour and diligence. I want to place on record the fact that our security forces and the forces of the Crown have acted with great courage and exemplary restraint over the past 20 years of murder and destruction in Northern Ireland.
No doubt everyone can recount an incident in which someone has stepped outside the law—but they will have received their proper and due judgment. I wish, however, that hon. Members who are so quick to criticise and find fault were equally eloquent when it came to giving due praise to the security forces in the Province for facing the dastardly enemy in our midst.
Our security forces operate under a severe disadvantage every time they go out. Unfortunately, they are often reacting—the Government: have decided on a policy of reaction—rather than acting against the terrorists and their enclaves. The advantage is in the hands of the terrorists. For example, they have the element of surprise.
Terrorists can watch the movements of the security forces. Doubtless they can watch a young man walk up the street to go on duty. They can watch young UDR men as they leave and return to their homes and establish what time they go on duty. That has happened too often. They have been allowed to go up the road safely for as long as a year, but then they let down their guard and the IRA murders them on their way to the UDR camp or the police station. That chapter has been written over and over again.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. William McCrea: In 'it moment.
We must sit back for a moment and reflect on whether we should make it more difficult for members of the security forces to carry out their duties. It is easy to say that they should have done it differently. With hindsight, it is easy to pontificate about the manner in which they should have arrested someone and to question whether minimum force was used.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) talked about Stalker, but I do not remember how many times Mr. Stalker had to face an IRA bullet or bomb. I cannot recall the number of times that he was out on duty in Northern Ireland and faced terrorists on the streets. I cannot remember the number of times that he went on duty to find out the reality of the situation. If people put their minds together they will find, I think, that he was never on the streets of Northern Ireland in uniform. It was easy for him, who came from the comfort of some plush office, with his airs and graces, and had no understanding whatsoever of reality.
Hon. Members have paraded the shoot-to-kill policy in the House tonight. Yes, there is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. The IRA has a full-blooded shoot-to-kill policy and intends to shoot every policeman, every UDR man and every Army lad or lassie who comes to the Province. That is the reality, and there is little or no hindrance whatsover to their efforts. The House ought to give credit and honour where it is due—to members of our security forces.
In relation to the plastic bullet issue, it was suggested that no young person could be responsible for terrorist activity. If the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) were listening, they would find it interesting to learn that there is a new terrorist cell in our locality. We have information that those who are being trained as the major gunmen are between 14 and 16 years of age. That is a new departure. I do not know whether they cannot get older people into the IRA groups. However, it is interesting that information from the security forces shows that, in our locality, the people who are going out to pull the trigger are very young.

Mr. Mallon: I hope that I misheard the hon. Gentleman. Did he confirm that the information that formed the basis of the allegation came directly from the security forces in the north of Ireland? Is he willing to put that on record?

Rev. William McCrae: I do not think that that was what the hon. Gentleman wanted to say when he tried to intervene earlier. Let me tell him, however, that the people of Northern Ireland have often heard him parading, in the media, what he has been told by some member of the security forces. It is ridiculous for him to suggest that he alone should be allowed to hear things on the grapevine.

Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. William McCrae: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I want to finish what I am saying.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that no one could suggest that young people would be involved in the use of plastic bullets. Does he not realise that the IRA do not care who they use as a human shield—that fancy term that was coined during the Gulf war? They do not care if the child whom they put in the front line is killed by a plastic bullet. In the past, they have been willing to put not only women and children but even their own members in the front line, as long as they benefit from the propaganda.
I vividly remember the tragic case of the two young soldiers in west Belfast—two young men in a car who thought it wiser to hand themselves over to the republicans


than to draw their guns to defend themselves. They were killed. Anyone who remembers that incident will know that there was nothing pleasing in it: it was one of the most despicable, disgraceful and horrifying things that have ever been witnessed, as the films and photographs that were taken at the time will confirm. Many observers believe that those two young men died because they were afraid to break the yellow-card restrictions, fearing that, if they escaped with their lives, they would end up in court being treated as criminals.
I oppose the new clause, and I think that anyone who has any knowledge of what it is like to be a serving member of the security forces will do the same.

Mr. Stanbrook: I have two main objections to the new clause and amendment No. 39. First, if they were adopted, the substantive law on self-defence would be fundamentally and radically changed in a way that would have important consequences for our criminal law. The Opposition have cooked up an amendment which they admit is based on tentative conclusions derived from a draft document laid before the United Nations. That gives no authority to the proposition that the general law of this country should be changed. If it is to be changed—if there is anything in the contention that the existing law is inadequate or wrong—surely the matter should be properly discussed outside the House.
The opinions of military and legal experts should be obtained and, if possible, some agreement should be reached. Until that is done, it would be highly irresponsible to accept such changes to the substantive law.
11 pm
My second objection is that the new clause is rather airy-fairy. It is an idealised conception of what rules can be imposed on persons who must act in the agony of the moment. Her Majesty's forces are trained to use their weapons at such times, but no hon. Member can imagine what he would do. It is virtually impossible to lay down rules governing their behaviour in such circumstances.
Amendment No. 39 says:
No live rounds are to be carried in the breech of a firearm … unless they are about to be fired.
What an absurd suggestion, given the realities of war, violence and terrorism and the possibility that lurking around a corner ahead of a soldier is an armed man ready to open fire. Those rules will be imposed not on the IRA but on our representatives, who are protecting the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. It is absurd that we should say to them, "You cannot carry a live round in the breech of your gun because you have not had your superior officer's permission to do so. You must wait until you see your adversary aiming a gun at you before you are entitled to put a round in the breech of your gun."
That is so manifestly unreal that one reaches the conclusion that the Opposition have no faith in what they are doing but simply want to handicap the Government in their prosecution of the war against terrorism in Northern Ireland. For that reason, the new clause is a perfectly reprehensible idea.

Dr. Mawhinney: When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) moved the new clause he said that we had discussed the use of lethal force several

times in Committee. It is right that we should do so again this evening because it is of considerable importance. As has been reflected in the debate, it leads to misconceptions. It is not frequently understood that split-second decisions must be taken when an incident is in progress. It also leads to the mistaken perception that there is, or has been, a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge the strength of the concern expressed about the use of firearms by the security forces and the emotiveness of the issue in parts of the community in Northern Ireland. I recognise the argument advanced by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that a code, as proposed in the new clause, would provide a clear set of rules, with statutory effect, on the circumstances in which the security forces might use firearms, thereby showing the Government's commitment to the principle that the security forces are tightly governed by the rule of law and recognising the special circumstances in which the security forces operate in Northern Ireland.
The issues involved are complex. As he did in Committee, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), with his legal training, illustrated some of the complexities and difficulties associated with the issue and with these proposals in particular. As I said in Committee, the use of firearms and the law on the use of force are matters that go beyond the emergency provisions legislation, since they affect the criminal law as a whole. It would be anomalous, in the Government's view, to make special provision for the circumstances in which policemen might open fire in dealing with suspected terrorists, but not in a range of other circumstances. We must also consider whether it would be desirable that the law on such a fundamental matter as the use of force in Northern Ireland should be distinct from that in England and Wales. These are thus issues which take the new clause and the amendment outside the scope of the Bill.
A statutory code of practice on the use of force, if such were to be introduced, would more properly belong in the ordinary criminal law, where the law on the use of force is to be found. As I explained to hon. Members in Committee, however, the Government will keep the issues under consideration. My Department accepted the offer of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to prepare a draft code so that we could see what it might look like and whether it was feasible or practicable for such a code to be drafted.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have listened intently to the exchanges. In the analysis of a draft code of practice, will the Minister and his officials examine comparative evidence? Is it the case that such codes of practice exist in other states?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last question. Certainly, we would want to take wide cognisance of whatever information was available to us in the drafting of such a code, were we to decide to proceed in that way.

Mr. Mallon: My question is much more fundamental. It relates to the central thrust of what the Minister has said so far. Is he of the opinion that a war is taking place in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Mawhinney: What is taking place in Northern Ireland is a lot of criminal activity by criminals, by people


who are called terrorists and by thugs, but it is certainly not anything comparable to what we have just seen in the Gulf states. That was a war. I am not sure whether there is a lot to be gained from debating the semantics of the position.
We all recognise that there is the illegal use of force in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) was right. There is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland; it is conducted by terrorists, primarily by the Provisional IRA, but also by others, including loyalist terrorists. Whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) wants to call that war is a matter for him. The House clearly understands the circumstances of what is happening in Northern Ireland and the need to address those circumstances in a way which is within the law, but nevertheless gives the security forces the opportunities to respond on behalf of the people whom they are there to serve and to protect to the maximum possible extent.

Mr. Mallon: The Minister has used the word "semantics". I agree that the debate is not about semantics. He has surely referred to the nub of the problem. He said in his answer that criminals are involved. Criminals are answerable to the law. Yet in all our debates we have the juxtaposition of one hon. Member saying that it is a war situation, the next saying that it is a matter for the ordinary law, and the next saying that it is a question of criminality. Certainly, some of the speeches made by Conservative Members show the need to make it clear that we are not talking about war. That is exactly what the Provisional IRA want us to talk about. It wants us to regard the situation as such because of the implications of that for the IRA. We are talking about trying to cope with criminal activity with the most normal law available to us.

Dr. Mawhinney: It is for right hon. and hon. Members of the House to make their own speeches. I am not responsible for the speeches of other hon. Members. I am responsible on this occasion for expressing the view of the Government. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are talking precisely about the law. That is what we have before us this evening. We have before us a Bill which, subject to the wish of this House and of another place, will become the law of the land. It will become the legal framework which governs the activities of security forces, police and others, in relation to those who go about terrorising, killing, maiming and breaking the law in Northern Ireland. The Bill will be used as law within the legal system for the protection of those who live in Northern Ireland. On that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely there is a distinction between dealing with ordinary criminal activity and facing up to terrorist activity. Surely the Minister agrees that in Northern Ireland we face intense terrorist activity by people who are prepared to kill by all possible means.

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If I may bring us back to the Bill, it is emergency provision legislation. It is an emergency provision for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has so eloquently stated, but it is still legislation. That is the way in which the House must proceed and the framework within which the security forces also have to proceed.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, the new clause appears similar to that which the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has produced, as indeed it is. It is a useful contribution to our consideration of the issue. We have been giving our thought and consideration to that issue since we received the proposal from the commission, and our dialogue with the commission will continue—it has not ended just because we have had a suggestion from the hon. Gentleman.
The House will appreciate, however, that such issues require careful consideration. Indeed, some of the reasons why they need to be carefully considered were mentioned by several hon. Members. The consideration that the issues deserve and require will take the matter well beyond the immediate timescale of the Bill. Indeed, I understand that the commission itself said that it would have preferred to have more time to consider the proposals that it made to the Government.
Against the background that I have described, I invite the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to withdraw his new clause. It raises issues which go beyond the Bill. Therefore, and for the reasons that I have stated, the Government are unable to accept it. But I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall continue to review the position with SACHR in the weeks ahead.

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for what the Minister has just said, but I am afraid that I am not satisfied with it. Before I press the new clause to a Division, I would like to respond to some of the points made by other hon. Members.
Part of the code would require that firearms always be made safe. That was laughed at. Should firearms be unsafe? Is that what the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) are saying?
I spoke about warning and said that the words "army", "police", "stop or I fire", or words to that effect, should be used. Should they not be used when the code says that security forces
shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would expose others or themselves to undue risk or would be clearly pointless or inappropriate in the circumstances."?
One cannot be allowed to get away with partial quotations. People delight in using partial quotations when they do not like a concept that is proposed. In this case, the concept is that members of the security forces who are in possession of firearms of tremendous power ought to use those firearms responsibly. Normally, the arms should be carried safely, and anyone who appears to have used a weapon wrongly should be answerable under the law. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Upper Bann to say, "It is terribly sad if a member of the security forces negligently or mistakenly discharges a firearm and kills somebody." The hon. Gentleman used the words, "negligently or mistakenly"; I took them down. It is indeed very unfortunate if a person is killed. Victims too have certain rights.

Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: Not at the moment.
We are not arguing that this House should give way to terrorists. Nor are we suggesting that there is equality


between terrorists and the armed forces. There is no such equality. Terrorists are terrorists—people with a shoot-to-kill policy. No one should deny that for one moment. Indeed, it has been driven home by the events of the past week, but that is not what the argument is about. The argument is about the proper use of force. The security forces act in our name, under the rule of law, so their use of force must be controlled.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman quoted me as having used the words, "negligently or mistakenly". He seemed rather surprised that I should have done so. Is he seriously suggesting that when a mistake is made—even if there is negligence—criminal sanctions should follow?

Mr. McNamara: The answer is yes. "Negligently" means without taking due care or precautions.

Mr. Trimble: And criminal sanctions should follow?

Mr. McNamara: Criminal sanctions should follow. Indeed, that is already the law.

Mr. Trimble: It is not.

Mr. McNamara: Under military law, it is a criminal offence to discharge a firearm negligently. Anyone doing so ends up in the glasshouse.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should be changing the law if we were to pass this new clause. Of course we should. We introduced the new clause because we want to change the law. It cannot be acceptable to the House that a person who cannot be charged with murder must be discharged. In respect of the use of firearms, there are different levels of culpability.
There are cases in which people kill others as a result of negligent, mistaken or careless action. In such circumstances, the crime may not amount to murder as such, but the people involved must be held responsible. Under current criminal law, that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman says that this should be part of the general law of the land rather than of emergency law, but we are concerned here with the emergency use of troops in support of the civil power. This legislation is designed to deal with that situation, and that is our reason for tabling the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 131.

Division No. 89]
[11.19 pm


AYES


Canavan, Dennis
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Clelland, David
Mallon, Seamus


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Meale, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, Dave


Dalyell, Tarn
Prescott, John


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Strang, Gavin


Haynes, Frank
Turner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Harry Barnes.


McNamara, Kevin






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Maclean, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Amess, David
Malins, Humfrey


Amos, Alan
Maples, John


Arbuthnot, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ashby, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Miller, Sir Hal


Beggs, Roy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mitchell, Sir David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Boswell, Tim
Monro, Sir Hector


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Mudd, David


Brazier, Julian
Needham, Richard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Norris, Steve


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Page, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Paice, James


Chope, Christopher
Paisley, Rev Ian


Conway, Derek
Patnick, Irvine


Cope, Rt Hon John
Pawsey, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Day, Stephen
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Dykes, Hugh
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Evennett, David
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Favell, Tony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forth, Eric
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Franks, Cecil
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Freeman, Roger
Speed, Keith


French, Douglas
Speller, Tony


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodlad, Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stern, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stevens, Lewis


Green way, John (Ryedale)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Gregory, Conal
Summerson, Hugo


Hannam, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Harris, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hawkins, Christopher
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hayes, Jerry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hayward, Robert
Thorne, Neil


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Tracey, Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Trimble, David


Hunter, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Irvine, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Janman, Tim
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wallace, James


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Waller, Gary


Kilfedder, James
Ward, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Watts, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Kirkwood, Archy
Wheeler, Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Widdecombe, Ann


Knowles, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Yeo, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lord, Michael
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



McCrea, Rev William

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18

POWERS OF ARREST AND SEIZURE OF MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 13, line 5, after 'seize' insert
',and detain for not more than four hours,'.
The amendment gives effect to a commitment which I gave in Committee. Clause 18(4) provides a new power for the armed forces to seize items which are, have been or are intended to be used in the commission of an offence under clauses 24 or 25.
I gave a commitment to the Committee to consider whether it would be desirable to limit the new power of seizure to a maximum of four hours, as with the power to arrest and detain persons under clause 18(1). The Government have decided that it would be desirable to make this change, and the amendment makes the necessary provision.
The effect of the amendment is that, if after four hours the items had not already been returned to their owners, they would have to be returned, unless the police considered it necessary to retain them under their powers in clause 17(3).
I hope that the House will welcome the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to say that I am glad that the Government have met our concerns. I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

POWER TO SEARCH FOR MUNITIONS, RADIO TRANSMITTERS AND SCANNING RECEIVERS

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 13, line 28, after 'above' insert 'reasonably'.
Clause 19(4) enables members of the police and armed forces carrying out a search of a dwelling house or any other premises to place restrictions on the movements of the occupants of the place of search, or to require other persons to refrain from entering it, where they believe that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of effectively carrying out the search or of preventing the frustration of its object.
In Committee, I undertook to change the statutory test in clause 19(4) to require the police and armed forces reasonably to believe that it is necessary for the purpose of effectively carrying out a search or of preventing the frustration of its object before imposing restrictions. The amendment gives effect to my undertaking. I hope that the House will welcome it.

Mr. McNamara: Again, we are happy to accept the amendment. We are happy that, at least on this occasion, the Government have met our wishes.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. Jim Marshall: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 15, leave out lines 31 to 48.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments No. 40 and 41.

Mr. Marshall: I hope that amendment No. 5 obtains the unanimity given to Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Clause 22 gives the security forces the power to examine and remove documents found in the course of searches of premises, vehicles or persons. As the Minister will remember, in Committee we tried to amend the clause. I believe that he had some sympathy with our arguments but was not prepared to accept our suggestions.
We are returning to this subject because we are still unhappy with clause 22 and we are not convinced that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 will be an improvement. We believe that they will make the clause unworkable. That is why we continue to press for the emasculation of the clause. The amendments, if agreed to, would make the clause ineffective.
Lord Colville of Culross ruled out the proposed innovation in the Province until such time as the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act provisions had been tested in the courts. The Minister will recall that that statement appears in paragraph 2.9.6 of Lord Colville's report. Lord Colville alluded to difficulties that the proposed power would create:
I have a reluctance to recommend extensions of emergency powers, especially when they expand the powers to search. Private papers are not lightly to be laid open to a rummage.
That is strong language for Lord Colville. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the consequent confrontations could give rise to considerable potential friction between the security forces and members of the public.
As we said in Committee, we believe that the penalties
that are attached to refusal to co-operate are excessively severe. It should be recognised that many ordinary people will be incensed by these draconian powers. Any premeditated attempt to disrupt a search is already covered by existing law—for example, obstruction, breach of the peace and other offences within the criminal code. The penalties that are attached to offences under the clause are excessive and unnecessary, given the provisions of the criminal law.
I congratulate the Government on tabling amendments Nos. 40 and 41, to the extent that the Minister accepted some of the arguments that we advanced in Committee. I presume that the Government's amendments are designed in part to try to meet the criticisms that we expressed at that stage. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, we prayed in aid in support of our views the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Bar Council. I hope that the Minister has had discussions with those two bodies. I hope also that he will be able to convince us that those two bodies think that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are suitable.
As I understand amendment No. 40, it is an attempt to introduce the concept of legal privilege so that certain documents will be exempt from the power that is defined


in the clause. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that concept was absent as the clause was drafted originally.
We welcome the concept of legal privilege. Indeed, it is one that we introduced in Committee. We have grave doubts, however, about the practicality of the clause if amendment No. 40 is agreed to. On what basis is it possible for a soldier at a checkpoint to determine whether an item is subject to legal privilege? A check can be made, but that will involve the soldier reading the material, and by reading it he would be committing an illegal act. How can the Minister reconcile that? A soldier can only ascertain that a document is legal by reading it, but, by doing so, he commits an illegal act.
The new subsection 2A strengthens the argument for the complete removal of an unworkable and counterproductive clause. Given the Government's view on the operation of PACE in the Province, the remainder of Government amendment No. 40 is ironic. In Committee, the Government rejected the PACE-type safeguards we proposed on the ground that they would lead to unnecessary bureaucracy.
Amendment No. 40 is a cynical attempt to amend the unamendable rather than accept that clause 22 is impractical. Unless I receive assurances from the Minister, we intend to press amendment No. 5 to a vote. We have grave doubts about the practicalities of amendments Nos. 40 and 41—we trust that the Minister will be able to give us further reassurances about them—but, despite those doubts, we do not intend to oppose the amendments in the Lobby.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) used the word "cynical", as it was a departure from his normal generosity of spirit when we have not agreed on the Bill on the past. I am also sorry that he believes that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are so unappealing.
One of the terrorist's most vital weapons is intelligence and the collection of information. I am sure that most people would agree with that statement. I therefore find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman believes that amendment No. 5 should be pursued and that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are "unworkable and unnecessary". If the terrorist sets such store by the collection of information—he needs that information to target his attacks on individuals or places—surely it must be appropriate for the House to address that issue. At present, the security forces are poorly equipped to profit from such opportunities as they may have to get hold of such information.
Although it is an offence to possess information which is likely to be of use to terrorists, there is no related power to examine material that may be found during the course of a lawful search to ascertain whether it contains such vital information for the terrorists. We went over this in Committee, and it is the basis of clause 22. The existing provisions in the PACE order, which require prior application for a warrant, are not adequate for this purpose.
As the law stands, it works greatly in the terrorists' favour. The Government regard the new powers in clause 22 as an appropriate way in which to enhance the security forces' ability to obtain evidential material, as well as

offering the potential to deter and disrupt terrorist operations. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we believe that these powers are justified and necessary. Nevertheless, I announced in Committee on 15 January that we had received representations from a number of bodies about the scope of the powers in clause 22. As the hon. Gentleman said, we had a thorough debate about the issue in Committee, when concerns were expressed by both sides about that clause.
The bodies that made representations to us included the Law Society for Northern Ireland, the Bar Council, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. I told the Committee that we would consult further on the issues, and we have done so.
After consultation with the interested parties, we have reflected on all the issues to establish whether we can provide greater protection for certain categories of document without sacrificing the essential security purpose of the power contained in the clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will simply have to agree to differ on that fundamental issue.
I take some pleasure from being able to tell the House that we have been able to introduce some important safeguards. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester, South does not share that pleasure. The proposed changes are in amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
First, amendment No. 40 provides that the power in clause 22 shall not be taken to authorise the examination, removal or retention of a document or record when there is reasonable cause for believing it to be an item subject to legal privilege. That was urged on us in Committee and it is an important limitation on the scope of the new power. The point was made to us by a number of bodies, including those to which I have just referred, that legal documents are given absolute protection under the ordinary law and should be similarly protected under clause 22. That was also urged on us in Committee. After careful reflection, we have concluded that it would be right to exclude such documents from the scope of clause 22.
11.45 pm
Secondly, the amendment places a duty on the police and armed forces to make a written record where a document or record is examined under clause 22, and to provide a copy of the record to any person whose documents have been examined. The record would also state the date and time when any document or record was removed and retained for examination, and it would identify the constable or member of the armed forces making it. The record would therefore constitute a receipt where documents are removed and retained for examination. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights considered that point to be important.
Thirdly, the amendment would set limits on the length of time that any document or record may be removed and retained for examination by the police or armed forces. It is right and proper that documents should not be removed for an indefinite period. The amendment would require the police and armed forces to return retained documents to their owners before the expiry of 48 hours from the time when they were removed, unless they were seized for evidential purposes.
However, we have thought it right to provide the police with powers, exercisable only on the authority of an officer of the rank of chief inspector or above, to extend the


period for another 48 hours in cases of particular difficulty, making a 96-hour maximum. Authorisation by a relatively senior police officer is an important safeguard against the possibility of documents being held for longer than is absolutely necessary.
Finally, the amendment prohibits the photographing or copying by the police and armed forces of any document or record which is examined. That should provide valuable reassurance that the confidentiality of documents will be respected.
Amendment No. 41 deals with a consequential change to clause 26. It simply provides that, where a document or record is found in the course of a search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, then the copy of the record of the examination shall be provided to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft, and will contain appropriate details.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked a practical question about what he saw as the difficulties of ascertaining whether a document was subject to legal privilege, and of someone having to read it in order to make that judgment. A police officer or member of the armed forces can examine documents only so far as is reasonably required to ascertain whether the document contains information likely to be useful to terrorists. The term "reasonably required" means that the matter is a subject for the courts.
The Government believe that the powers in clause 22 are necessary and justified. We listened to representations by members of the Committee, as we were urged to do, and to representations by others. We have responded to those representations, and we propose to provide important protection for legal documents and to build into the clause a series of procedural safeguards. I hope that, if amendment No. 5 is pressed to a vote, the House will feel able to reject it and to accept amendments Nos. 40 and 41.

Mr. Jim Marshall: First, I should like to comment on my use of the word "cynical". I do not usually reflect and then agree that I may have used an inappropriate word. On this occasion I have thought about the use of the word "cynical" and I agree that it was perhaps inappropriate to use such a word at this juncture. I put my use of it down to the lateness of the hour. I realise that I cannot get the Hansard reporter to change the word, but I should like the record to show that I have withdrawn the word "cynical" and would have liked to use the word "sceptical" instead.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious withdrawal.

Mr. Marshall: Before the Minister is too grateful, I suggest that he looks at the dictionary definitions of "cynical" and "sceptical"—but let my retraction stand.
There is not much difference between the Government and the Opposition on the use of documents by terrorist organisations and the need for security forces to have some powers to inspect such documents. As the Minister will appreciate, however, in Committee we placed great emphasis on legal documents. The Minister said then that under existing criminal law such documents have absolute privilege, but from what the Minister has now said, that will clearly not apply under this emergency legislation.
Again we come back to the old conundrum of who will judge reasonableness and at what stage in the process it will be ascertained. I presume that a judge or a court will decide, but that will be at a stage far removed from the

soldier looking at the document and having to read either a short or long extract before he is able to decide whether it is subject to legal privilege.
That is why we are sceptical of Government amendment No. 40. The introduction of the concept of legal privilege is good and coincides with the Opposition's view, but in practice it will have little or no effect, and the average legal document which should be subject to privilege will be treated no better or worse than any other document.
That is the basis of our doubts about Government amendment No. 40. As I have already said, however, it is not our intention to oppose it. Nevertheless, despite the Minister's criticism of amendment No. 5, we shall seek to divide the House on that amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 22, Noes 126.

Division No. 90]
[11.52 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Canavan, Dennis
Mallon, Seamus


Clelland, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Primarolo, Dawn


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


McGrady, Eddie
Mr.Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Don Dixon.


McNamara, Kevin





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawkins, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Amess, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Amos, Alan
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arbuthnot, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hunter, Andrew


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Irvine, Michael


Ashby, David
Janman, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beggs, Roy
Kilfedder, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Kirkwood, Archy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Brazier, Julian
Knowles, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
McCrea, Rev William


Conway, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cope, Rt Hon John
Maclean, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dykes, Hugh
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Favell, Tony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miller, Sir Hal


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, Sir David


Franks, Cecil
Moate, Roger


Freeman, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Gale, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Needham, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gregory, Conal
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Paice, James






Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Trimble, David


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wallace, James


Shelton, Sir William
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stevens, Lewis
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 15, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) This section shall not be taken to authorise the examination, removal or retention of a document or record by a person at a time when he has reasonable cause for believing it to be an item subject to legal privilege (within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989).
(2B) Where a document or record is examined under this section it shall not be photographed or copied.
(2C) Where a document or record is examined under this section the person who examines it shall make a written record of the examination at once or, where it is not practicable to make one at once, as soon as is practicable.
(2D) A record of an examination of a document or record which is made under this section shall specify—
(a) a description of the document or record;
(b) the object of the examination;
(c) the address of the premises, or a description of the place, where the document or record was found;
(d) where the document or record was found in the course of a search of a person, the name of that person;
(e) where the document or record was found in the course of a search of any premises or other place, the name of any person appearing to the person making the record to be the occupier of the premises or other place or to have had custody or control of the document or record when it was found;
(f) where the document or record was removed for examination from the place where it was found, the date and time when it was removed from that place; and
(g) where the document or record was examined at the place where it was found, the date and time when it was examined.
(2E) Such a record shall identify the person by whom the examination was carried out—
(a) in the case of a constable, by reference to his police number; and
(b) in the case of a member of Her Majesty's forces, by reference to his service number, rank and regiment.
(2F) Where a record of an examination of a document or record is made under this section a copy of the record shall be supplied—
(a) in a case where the document or record was found in the course of a search of a person, to that person; and
(b) in a case where the document or record was found in the course of a search of any premises or other place, to any person appearing to the person making the

record to be the occupier of the premises or other place or to have had custody or control of the document or record when it was found.
(2G) Subject to subsection (2H) below, a document or record may not be retained by virtue of subsection (2) above for more than forty-eight hours.
(2H) An officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not below the rank of chief inspector may authorise the retention of a document or record by a constable for a further period or periods; but no such authorisation shall permit the retention of a document or record beyond the end of the period of ninety-six hours from the time when it was removed for examination from the place where it was found.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 26

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 18, line 15, at end insert—
'(1A) Where a document or record examined under section 22 above was found in the course of a search of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, the references in that section to the occupier of the premises or place where it was found shall be construed as references to the person in charge of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Clause 27

DIRECTING TERRORIST ORGANISATION

12 midnight

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 19, leave out lines 10 to 13.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in page 19, line 10, leave out ', at any level,'.

No. 11, in page 19, line 10, after 'the' insert 'criminal'.

No. 2, in page 19, line 10, leave out 'an' and insert 'a proscribed'.

No. 3, in page 19, line 11, leave out 'which is concerned in' and insert 'with regard to'.

No. 12, in page 19, line 13, leave out 'imprisonment for life' and insert
'imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years'.

Government amendment No. 33.

Mr. McNamara: Clause 27 was introduced by the Government, rather strangely, during the final stages in Committee. It creates a new offence of directing
the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism",
the punishment for which shall be life imprisonment.
There are several objections to this clause. It creates a new offence, but fails to define it. The concept of directing is totally unknown in existing law. Concepts such as permitting, allowing, suffering and controlling all exist and have a definite meaning, but there is no such precision in this clause.
It is also noteworthy that the draft criminal code drawn up by the Law Commission in 1989 does not refer to the concept of directing anyone in the commission of any crime. Given that lack of precision and definition, the Government are likely to argue—as they did in Committee —that the courts will provide the necessary definition. Such an argument amounts to claiming that good judges in Northern Ireland will rescue us from bad law passed by the House of Commons.
Not only does the clause lack precision; it is unnecessary. It is already illegal to take part in the preparation, instigation or commission of acts of terrorism. The definition is already wide enough to encompass any behaviour that could legitimately be considered to direct the activities of an organisation involved in terrorism. Furthermore, the clause is, to a degree, dishonest. Its practical effect would be to make virtually every member of a proscribed organisation liable to a life sentence. As such persons would inevitably be involved in directing activities at some level, almost any involvement in any such organisation would make them so liable. If the Government intend to increase the penalties —there may or may not be an argument for that—they should say so openly, arid do it directly rather than through the back door.
It can be argued that the failure to keep sentences proportionate to crimes poses an additional danger for the security forces, as there would be little difference between the consequences of less severe crimes and those of murder. The provision of the new offence would have strange, almost absurd, consequences. It relates not to the direction of terrorist activities, but to the direction of organisations concerned in such activities. Anyone responsible for bringing about a decision to cease terrorist activities would be liable to life imprisonment. People who engaged in conversations with terrorist organisations with the aim of persuading them to lay down their arms and pursue their goals democratically would be penalised by the clause.
Clause 27 is not tied to the present emergency, in that it does not confine itself to terrorist activities engaged in by proscribed organisations, or to terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It seems to be an example of the consequences of an error known to the Central Intelligence Agency as "blowback". "Blowback" occurs when official propaganda feeds back into official policy-making—when people act on the belief that their own propaganda is necessarily true. The theory behind it is that of the godfather hypothesis, which posits the existence of a directorate that plans, but does not carry out, acts of terrorism. Apart from the fact that anyone so involved is already guilty of a wide range of criminal offences, everything that is known about terrorism in Northern Ireland suggests that the credibility of the paramilitary leaders among their supporters depends on their being, or having been, personally implicated in specific acts of terrorism. A surprising number of them have been found by the courts to be involved in specific crimes.
We cannot accept clause 27. The Government have not said that they are prepared to accept any of the amendments. Amendment No. 1, which was tabled by Ulster Unionist Members, seeks to make clause 27 more specific. It removes the phrase, "at any level", thereby restricting its scope to the leaders of proscribed organisations. If they push it to a vote, we shall vote for it.
Amendment No. 2 would ensure that the clause applies only to organisations that have been proscribed, so that leading an organisation that may be involved in violent incidents does not lead to conviction unless it has been proscribed. I am not too happy with the amendment because a front organisation may condemn some acts of violence while sponsoring terrorist activity or benefiting from it. The amendment will need more careful consideration.
Amendment No. 3 makes the clause more specific by restricting guilt to those involved in the direction of terrorist activities. The legal activities of the organisation would not be covered. My hon. Friends in the SDLP have tabled an amendment to achieve a similar purpose, and I should have thought that it would recommend itself to the Government.
In amendment No. 12, my hon. Friends in the SDLP seek to change the blanket charge or the indeterminate or mandatory life sentence to up to 10 years' imprisonment. Given the vagueness of the clause and the possibility of conviction under it for varying responsibilities for paramilitary campaigns, preserving judicial discretion would allow for sentences to be proportionate to the offence.
Clause 27, which has no parallel in criminal legislation, introduces a dangerous new concept. In Committee, the Government said that it is necessary, yet members of the various terrorist organisations are already caught by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. By creating a new offence to pretend that they are doing something about the godfathers, the Government are not helping the fight against terrorism. The new clauses that we discussed earlier contained sensible provisions, but clause 27, which seems to be an emotional spasm, should not be in the Bill.

Mr. Mallon: I should like to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 1 and 12, which were tabled by SDLP Members.
Amendment No. 1 inserts "criminal" before the word "activities".

Mr. Trimble: That is amendment No. 11.

Mr. Mallon: Amendment No. 11.
Under clause 27, any person who directs the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism is guilty of an offence. The clause is open to an interpretation that could be quite erroneous. Someone could direct several activities within an organization—an organisation that supports and is involved in terrorism—that are not terrorist acts and that could not be considered criminal acts. The clause must be clearly defined, or it will rightly be described as loose, imprecise and bad legislation.
In Committee, it was suggested that we shall rely on good judges to protect the accused from bad law. I described clause 27 as resembling something that had been written on the back of an envelope by someone on his way home on the Underground—if the Underground had not been disrupted by someone who had been directing the activities of an organisation involved in terrorism.
The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to try to soften the notion that somehow such activity merits a life sentence. The clause invites the judge to consider a life sentence. The Minister of State will argue that it would be nonsense for a judge not to use his discretion. If discretion is being left to the judge, that should be defined in the legislation. It is for that reason that we tabled the amendments.

Mr. Trimble: When the clause was discussed in Committee, we said that we could see merit in its general objective, but we were concerned about the width of its terms. In Committee, I put a number of questions to the


Minister of State on the point. In the light of his answers, we decided to table amendments to put on record our reservations, doubts and unhappiness about some aspects of the clause. I should like to speak to those briefly.
Reference has been made to amendment No. 1, which would delete the phrase "at any level". As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, the object is to tighten the legislation. If it inflicts life imprisonment on the person who directs the activities of the organisation at any level, it will sweep up people who are engaged in low-level activity. We think that life imprisonment may not be appropriate when members of a proscribed organisation pay heavy penalties simply through membership, and any criminal activity that can be proved will carry its own penalty.
The object of the clause is to give a special additional heavy penalty in the shape of life imprisonment to people who are, as is said, the godfathers. The godfathers are not the small fry. We can see merit in the legislation, because it is reasonable to believe that there are circumstances in which persons who are not members of proscribed organisations are directing their activities. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but in some cases they are former active members of proscribed organisations who have moved on to other activities which are not formally proscribed but none the less, from that position of relative safety, they still direct terrorist activities. It is right that severe penalties should be available for them. I should like to think that they would be used, but we will wait and see.
In Committee I asked the Minister of State why the clause was not directed specifically to proscribed organisations. He said that he did not want to refer to proscribed organisations because of the width of the power to proscribe. In clause 28(3), the Secretary of State may proscribe an organisation if it
appears to him to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it.
The Minister of State said that he did not want to cover all those organisations. He did not want to cover organisations that were simply promoting or encouraging terrorism; he wanted to focus on organisations which were concerned in terrorism. The spirit of his reply was that "proscribed" was too wide, that he wanted a narrower focus.
In framing the amendments, I tried to get the best of both worlds by referring to proscribed organisations and then by making it clear that the offence would apply not just to directing any activity of a proscribed organisation but to directing the terrorist activities of proscribed organisations. I think that in those circumstances life imprisonment is not inappropriate.
With regard to other organisations which are not proscribed, there are two answers—either the organisation should be proscribed or the criminal or terrorist activities themselves could be brought in. The clause would bring in other organisations not proscribed where it might not be appropriate.
In Committee the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North gave an example. He referred to the Animal Liberation Front as an example of an organisation which has been engaged—or there is reason to believe that it has been engaged—in activities which would come within the definition of terrorist activities. In this clause, a person

who directs any activity, whether criminal or non-criminal, within a body such as the Animal Liberation Front could be exposed to life imprisonment. We felt that was perhaps a little too draconian.
If we are to have a penalty of this nature, it is appropriate that it be more narrowly focused. We tabled the amendments to put our position on record and I hope that the Government will consider the matter further.

Dr. Mawhinney: Several important amendments have been tabled to the clause, and several hon. Members have spoken to them. I will do my best to meet the standard that I set myself at the beginning of the proceedings to be as concise as possible but to do justice to the arguments made.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not like clause 27. He did not like it in Committee, and he does not like it today. He has the virtue of consistency and we all admire him for that. I like clause 27. We have the same consistency and it seems that we shall have difficulty in achieving a meeting of minds on the subject. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the ordinary, common-sense meaning of this simple clause. A significant feature of all the amendments is that they focus on individual words.
Clause 27 is short and needs to be taken in the round. The word "directing" has its ordinary common-sense meaning. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North does not like the word "direct"—he wants it to be defined—but if the House defined "direct" the courts would still have to reach a judgment about what the words meant. It seems much better that they should have to interpret a simple sentence with its common-sense meaning rather than complicated definitions of the word "direct", which they would still have to interpret. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked up the definition in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The meaning of the word "direct" is clear and straightforward.
Amendment No. 1 is designed to remove the phrase "at any level". I advise the House that that phrase was included deliberately in the provision. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) acknowledged that I made that clear in Committee. The phrase was included to make it clear that anyone who directs the activities of one of the organisations, whether at headquarters, regional or local level, is equally open to prosecution.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North suggested that the clause was not necessary because those involved in terrorist organisations could always be got for something else. But some of them cannot be got for something else. That is precisely why the clause has been inserted in the Bill.
As I said in Committee, the expression "at any level" was chosen to give specific recognition to the types of structure that terrorist organisations adopt. I am slightly surprised at the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I should have thought that, with his knowledge, he would have recognised that the structures of terrorist organisations gave the phrase "at any level" genuine meaning. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has never accepted that concept, either in Committee or today, but I should have thought that the hon. Member for Upper Bann would recognise it.

Mr. Trimble: Perhaps in my haste to make progress I passed over that point when I should have dealt with it in detail. I remember the points that the Minister made in Committee. He referred to cell-like structures, and so on. I formed the opinion then—and I am still of the opinion now—that the Bill would catch people directing cells of terrorist organisations if it simply used the phrase "directing the activities". I believe that "at any level" is still too wide.

Mr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for explaining his view. I am afraid that we shall have to agree to disagree. It is gratifying that he recognises that there are structures which make the inclusion of the words "at any level" arguably defensible, even if he is not persuaded by the argument.
As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, the purpose of amendment No. 11 is to narrow the scope of the offence. It would apply to those directing the criminal activities of organisations concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism. Of course, I accept that in certain circumstances some of the activities of terrorist organisations may not be overtly criminal—that is to say, they may not, in themselves, be breaches of the criminal law. For example, activities which may be directed by a person holding the position of quartermaster may not in themselves be criminal activities. It is not a criminal offence to purchase or acquire items such as gloves, balaclavas, overalls, two-way radios or walkie-talkies. On the other hand, we can have no doubt about the purpose behind the quartermaster's direction that such items should be acquired. I therefore suggest to the House that it is right that those against whom there is evidence of the direction of such activities, even when those activities may not in themselves be unlawful, should be open to prosecution.
With regard to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it may interest the hon. Member for Upper Bann to know that when the clause was being drafted our initial inclination —in line with the hon. Gentleman's own thinking—was to define the offence in terms of proscribed organisations. Clearly, it was—and is—our expectation that, in practice, it is against the leaders of those organisations which are currently proscribed, at whatever level, that the offence will be used. It became apparent, however, that there could be potential complications in using that definition. As hon. Members will recall, clause 28(3) empowers the Secretary of State to add to the list of proscribed organisations
any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it.
The use of the definition "proscribed organisation" for this offence would have opened up the theoretical possibility that those who might be directing the activities of organisations which had been proscribed only for promoting or encouraging terrorism, rather than because they were concerned in terrorism, would be open to prosecution for this serious offence. That is not a situation that we wish to see arise.
I see difficulties also in respect of amendment No.3. It is clear that, as the amendment is drafted the offence applies to anyone involved in directing the activities of terrorist organisations without seeking to put limits on the types of activities concerned. The point here is that every organisation is composed to some extent of different groups with different specialisations. In addition to those who actually plan and carry out acts of terrorism, there are

those who perform other functions such as intelligence-gathering, recruitment and quartermastering which are vital to the existence of the organisations. It is therefore right that those responsible for those various functions should be subject to prosecution for the offence if there is evidence of their directing role, although in individual cases that role may well not be such as to justify the maximum penalty.

Mr. Trimble: I understand what the Minister is saying about activities other than those of a directly terrorist nature—gathering information, for instance—but he must realise that the cooks and bottlewashers are included.

Mr. Mawhinney: If cooks and bottlewashers are members of terrorist organisations, it is possible that we are gathering them in.
Amendment No. 3, however, appears to limit the application of the offence solely to those directing the activities of these organisations with regard to actual acts of terrorism. Not only would that represent an unacceptable narrowing of the offence, but it would place an additional heavy burden on the prosecution to demonstrate that that was precisely the suspect's role within the organisation's command.
The purpose of amendment No. 12 is straightforward —it would reduce the maximum penalty for the offence from life imprisonment to 10 years. The Government cannot support that amendment. As hon. Members know, the offence is aimed at those who direct the activities of terrorist organisations, and it simply would not be credible for those in control of such organisations to be subject to a lesser maximum penalty than their subordinates. Rank and file members of those organisations are liable to sentences of life imprisonment where serious offences are committed, and it is right that those who are responsible for directing such activities should be subject to no less a penalty.
The purpose of Government amendment No. 33 is to add the offence in clause 27 to the list of scheduled offences in schedule 1. It would clearly be inappropriate for the offence to be dealt with before juries, and the amendment will ensure that cases will be dealt with in accordance with the procedures in part I of the Bill.
For all those reasons, I invite the House to resist amendments Nos. 6, 1, 11, 2, 3 and 12, but to accept Government amendment No. 33.

Mr. McNamara: It is not my intention to keep the House long, but the Minister of State has confirmed the point that we made earlier—he is boxed in by his own propaganda. He accused me of being consistent. On this issue, I am consistently right and he is consistently wrong and has dug a big pit for himself. He started by saying that everyone knew what "directing" meant. I asked him what he meant, and he replied that it would be foolish to define it. The Bill contains clauses that consist of nothing but definitions, so everything will be defined except the major new offence.
The Minister said that we needed the new offence because there would be occasions when the people involved would not otherwise be, to use his charming and immortal word, "got". He did not give an example of what he meant, but he then said that he had thought of one and talked about quartermasters who, when sending out


people to collect items such as balaclavas and two-way radios, would be directing. They would be caught under clause 30 on obtaining possession of items intended for terrorist purposes.
The Minister gave a list of other examples. He rightly said that it would be wrong for people who direct terrorism to be given more lenient prison sentences than those who carry out the crimes. But there are offences, including being an accessory to a crime and conspiracy, that cover every example given by the Minister. Someone felt that the Government had to appear to be tough. The proposal is nothing but an emotional spasm, and we should get rid of it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 123.

Division No. 91]
[12.32 am


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Mallon, Seamus


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Meale, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Nellist, Dave


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Turner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


McNamara, Kevin





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Amess, David
Irvine, Michael


Amos, Alan
Janman, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Kilfedder, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Ashby, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Kirkwood, Archy


Beggs, Roy
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knowles, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
McCrea, Rev William


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sydney
Maclean, David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cope, Rt Hon John
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Day, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fallon, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Favell, Tony
Miller, Sir Hal


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mitchell, Sir David


Forth, Eric
Moate, Roger


Franks, Cecil
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Freeman, Roger
Monro, Sir Hector


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mudd, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Needham, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gregory, Conal
Norris, Steve


Hague, William
Paice, James


Hannam, John
Paisley, Rev Ian


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Christopher
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)





Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trimble, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, Sir William
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wallace, James


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stevens, Lewis
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thurnham, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 52

RIGHT TO COMPENSATION

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 34, line 44, at end insert—
'(8) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done under Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act or Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 54

RESTRICTION OF PROSECUTIONS

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 35, line 20, leave out from 'prosecution' to 'except' in line 21 and insert—
'in respect of an offence under this Act shall not be instituted in Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 20.

Dr. Mawhinney: Clause 54 provides that no proceedings for an offence under the Bill shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members agree that private prosecutions for an offence under the Bill would be inappropriate.
The offences in relation to authorised investigators apply to England and Wales and to Scotland and the offences in relation to the confiscation scheme are capable of being extended to those jurisdictions.

Dr. Godman: I ask for the Minister's tolerance and sympathy. As a Scots Member, I am puzzled about why there is no mention of Scotland. When I was on a local review committee inquiring into Edinburgh prison, I had to assess for parole purposes a number of men who were in gaol in Scotland for committing terrorist acts involving groups in Northern Ireland. I ask the question because the Director of Public Prosecutions has no responsibility in Scotland. Why is there no reference to Scotland in the clause?

Dr. Mawhinney: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to move on to the next paragraph of my reply, his question would have been answered.
To ensure that there are no private prosecutions for offences under the Act, the amendments provide that proceedings in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the respective Directors of Public Prosecutions. No equivalent provision is necessary for Scotland, because private prosecutions cannot be brought in Scotland. I understand that prosecutions in Scotland have to be brought by the Lord Advocate.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 35, line 22, at end insert
'or in England and Wales except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 56

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 36, line 4, leave out from '(2)' to 'shall' in line 5 and insert
'No order under section 1 or 28 above or 58(3) below or paragraph 18(1)(a) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act and no regulations under section 48 above'

No. 22, in line 12, leave out from '(3)' to 'shall' in line 13 and insert
'Orders and regulations under the provisions mentioned in subsection (2) above'

No. 23, in line 16, after 'made', insert 'such'

No. 24, in line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) Subsection (1) above does not apply to any order under section 25, Schedule 3 or paragraph 6(1)(d) of Schedule 4 or any order under regulations made by virtue of section 48.
(4A) Any regulations under section 8 and any order under section 14(5), 15(8), (Confiscation orders)(5), 50 or 51 above or under paragraph 7(3) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 58

COMMENCEMENT, DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 36, line 35, after 'Act', insert
'except Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities)'.

No. 26, in line 36, at end insert
'and that Part shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.'

No. 27, in line 37, at end insert
'and Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities)'.

No. 28, in line 41, leave out second 'and'.

No. 29, in line 42, at end insert
';and
(c) paragraph 19 of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions),'.

No. 30, in line 44, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (3) below'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Clause 60

SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 38, line 23, leave out 'section 47, Schedule 4 and paragraph 2(2) and (3)' and insert

'sections (Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities), (Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities) and 47, paragraph 18 of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions), Schedule 4, this Part of this Act so far as relating to those provisions and paragraphs 2(2), (3), (7) and (8)'.—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

New Schedule

CONFISCATION ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Interpretation

1.—(1) Section (Interpretation of confiscation provisions) of this Act also has effect for the purposes of this Schedule.

(2) The following provisions have effect, in addition to those of that section, for the interpretation of this Schedule.

(3) Proceedings for an offence are concluded—
(a) when (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of a confiscation order being made in the proceedings;
(b) on the satisfaction of a confiscation order made in the proceedings (whether by payment of the amount due under the order or by the defendant serving imprisonment in default).

(4) An order is subject to appeal until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to appeal out of time) there is no further possibility of an appeal on which the order could be varied or set aside.

(5) References to "acting as an insolvency practitioner" shall be construed in accordance with Article 3 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 except that for the purposes of such construction paragraph (5) of that Article (which provides that nothing in the Article is to apply to anything done by the official receiver) shall be disregarded; and the expression shall include the official receiver acting as receiver or manager of the property.

(6) References to the Registration of Deeds Acts are to the Registration of Deeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and every statutory provision for the time being in force amending that Act or otherwise relating to the registry of deeds, or to the registration of deeds, orders or other instruments or documents in such registry.

Application of procedure for enforcing fines

2.—(1) Where the Crown Court makes a confiscation order against a defendant, section 35(1), (2) and (4) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (powers of Crown Court in relation to fines) shall have effect as if—
(a) the amount which the order requires him to pay were a fine imposed on him by the Crown Court; and
(b) in section 35(2) (imprisonment in default), for the reference to twelve months there were substituted a reference to the periods set out in the second column of the following Table applicable respectively to the amounts set out opposite thereto—


An amount not exceeding £50
Table 7 days


An amount exceeding £50 but not exceeding £100
14 days


An amount exceeding £100 but not exceeding £400
30 days


An amount exceeding £400 but not exceeding £1,000
60 days


An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,000
90 days


An amount exceeding £2,000 but not exceeding £5,000
6 months






An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000
9 months


An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000
12 months


An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000
18 months


An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000
2 years


An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000
3 years


An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £1 million
5 years


An amount exceeding £1 million
10 years

(2) Where—
(a) a warrant of commitment is issued for a default in payment of an amount ordered to be paid by a confiscation order in respect of an offence; and
(b) at the time the warrant is issued, the defendant is liable to serve a term of custody in respect of the offence,
the term of imprisonment or of detention under section 5 of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (detention of persons aged sixteen to twenty-one for default) to be served in default of payment of the amount shall not begin to run until after the term mentioned in paragraph (b) above.

(3) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) above to the term of custody which the defendant is liable to serve in respect of the offence is a reference to the term of imprisonment or of detention under section 5 of the said Act of 1968 which he is liable to serve in respect of the offence; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph—
(a) consecutive terms and terms which are wholly or partly concurrent shall be treated as a single term; and
(b) there shall be disregarded—
(i) any sentence of imprisonment or order for detention suspended under section 18 of that Act which has not taken effect at the time when the warrant is issued; and
(ii) any term of imprisonment or detention fixed under section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 for which a warrant of commitment has not been issued at that time.

(4) An amount payable under a confiscation order is not a fine, costs, damages or compensation for the purposes of section 76 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (enforcement of fines imposed on young offenders).

(5) This paragraph applies in relation to confiscation orders made by the Court of Appeal, or by the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal, as it applies in relation to confiscation orders made by the Crown Court, and the reference in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above to the Crown Court shall be construed accordingly.

Interest on sums unpaid under confiscation orders

3.—(1) If any sum required to be paid by a person under a confiscation order is not paid when it is required to be paid (whether forthwith on the making of the order or at a time specified under section 35(1) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945), that person shall be liable to pay interest on that sum for the period for which it remains unpaid and the amount of the interest shall for the purposes of enforcement be treated as part of the amount to be recovered from him under the confiscation order.

(2) The Crown Court may, on the application of the prosecution, increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (1)(c) of section 35 of the said Act of 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of sub-paragraph (1) above is

to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) above.

(3) The rate of interest under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be that for the time being applying to a money judgment of the High Court.

Cases in which restraint orders and charging orders may be made

4.—(1) The powers conferred on the High Court by paragraphs 5(1) and 6(1) below are exercisable where—
(a) proceedings have been instituted in Northern Ireland against the defendant for a relevant offence;
(b) the proceedings have not been concluded; and
(c) the court is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities.

(2) Those powers are also exercisable where—
(a) the High Court is satisfied that, whether by the making of a complaint or otherwise, a person is to be charged with a relevant offence; and
(b) it appears to the court that there is reasonable cause to believe that he has benefited from terrorist-related activities.

(3) For the purposes of paragraphs 5 and 6 below at any time when those powers are exercisable before proceedings have been instituted—
(a) references to the defendant shall be construed as references to the person referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) above;
(b) references to the prosecution shall be construed as references to the person who the High Court is satisfied is to have the conduct of the proposed proceedings; and
(c) references to realisable property shall be construed as if, immediately before that time, proceedings had been instituted against the person referred to in subparagraph (2)(a) above for a relevant offence.

(4) Where the High Court has made an order under paragraph 5(1) or 6(1) below by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, the court shall discharge the order if proceedings in respect of the offence are not instituted (whether by the making of a complaint or otherwise) within such time as the court considers reasonable.

Restraint orders

5.—(1) The High Court may by order (a restraint order) prohibit any person from dealing with any realisable property, subject to such conditions and exceptions as may be specified in the order.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above, a restraint order may make such provision as the High Court thinks fit for living expenses or legal expenses.

(3) A restraint order may apply—
(a) to all realisable property held by a specified person, whether the property is described in the order or not; and
(b) to realisable property held by a specified person, being property transferred to him after the making of the order.

(4) This paragraph shall not have effect in relation to any property for the time being subject to a charge under paragraph 6 below.

(5) A restraint order—
(a) may be made only on an application by the prosecution;
(b) may be made on an ex parte application to a judge in chambers; and
(c) shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.

(6) A restraint order—
(a) may be discharged or varied in relation to any property; and


(b) shall be discharged when proceedings for the offence are concluded.

(7) An application for the discharge or variation of a restraint order may be made by any person affected by it.

(8) Where the High Court has made a restraint order, the court may at any time appoint a receiver—
(a) to take possession of any realisable property; and
(b) in accordance with the court's directions, to manage or otherwise deal with any property in respect of which he is appointed,
subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified by the court; and the court may require any person having possession of property in respect of which a receiver is appointed under this section to give possession of it to the receiver.

(9) For the purposes of this paragraph, dealing with property held by any person includes (without prejudice to the generality of the expression)—
(a) where a debt is owed to that person, making a payment to any person in reduction of the amount of the debt; and
(b) removing the property from Northern Ireland.

(10) Where the High Court has made a restraint order, a constable may, for the purpose of preventing any realisable property being removed from Northern Ireland, seize the property.

(11) Property seized under sub-paragraph (10) above shall be dealt with in accordance with the directions of the High Court.

(12) The prosecution shall be treated for the purposes of section 66 of the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (cautions) as a person interested in relation to any registered land to which a restraint order or an application for such an order relates.

(13) On the application of the prosecution, the Registrar shall, in respect of any registered land to which a restraint order or an application for such an order relates, make an entry inhibiting any dealing with the land without the consent of the High Court.

(14) Subsections (2) and (4) of section 67 of the said Act of 1970 (inhibitions) shall apply to an entry made on the application of the prosecution under sub-paragraph (13) above as they apply to an entry made on the application of any person interested in the registered land under subsection (1) of that section.

(15) Where a restraint order has been protected by an entry registered under the said Act of 1970 or the Registration of Deeds Acts, an order under sub-paragraph (6) above discharging the restraint order may direct that the entry be vacated.

(16) In this paragraph "Registrar" and "entry" have the same meanings as in the said Act of 1970 and "regisitered land" means land the title to which is registered under Part III of that Act.

Charging orders in respect of land, securities, etc.

6.—(1) The High Court may make a charging order on realisable property for securing the payment to the Crown—
(a) where a confiscation order has not been made, of an amount equal to the value from time to time of the property charged; and
(b) in any other case, of an amount not exceeding the amount payable under the confiscation order.

(2) A charging order—
(a) may be made only on an application by the prosecution;
(b) may be made on an ex parte application to a judge in chambers;
(c) shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order; and

(d) may be made subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit and, without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph, such conditions as it thinks fit as to the time when the charge is to become effective.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (5) below, a charge may be imposed by a charging order only on—
(a) any interest in realisable property, being an interest held beneficially by the defendant or by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act—
(i) in any asset of a kind mentioned in subparagraph (4) below; or
(ii) under any trust; or
(b) any interest in realisable property held by a person as trustee of a trust if the interest is in such an asset or is an interest under another trust and a charge may by virtue of paragraph (a) above be imposed by a charging order on the whole beneficial interest under the first-mentioned trust.

(4) The assets referred to in sub-paragraph (3) above are—
(a) land in Northern Ireland; or
(b) securities of any of the following kinds—
(i) government funds or stock;
(ii) stock of any body incorporated within Northern Ireland (other than a building society);
(iii) stock of any body incorporated outside Northern Ireland (other than a building society incorporated in Great Britain) or of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, being stock registered in a register kept at any place within Northern Ireland;
(iv) units of any unit trust in respect of which a register of the unit holders is kept at any place within Northern Ireland.

(5) In any case where a charge is imposed by a charging order on any interest in an asset of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(b) above, the High Court may provide for the charge to extend to any interest or dividend payable in respect of the asset.

(6) The High Court may make an order discharging or varying the charging order and shall make an order discharging the charging order if the proceedings for the offence are concluded or the amount payment of which is secured by the charge is paid into court.

(7) An application for the discharge or variation of a charging order may be made by any person affected by it.

Charging orders: supplementary provisions

7.—(1) Subject to any provision made under paragraph 9 below or by rules of court, a charge imposed by a charging order shall have the like effect and shall be enforceable in the same courts and in the same manner as an equitable charge created by the person or persons who are entitled to make such charges over the realisable property.

(2) Where a charging order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 or the Registration of Deeds Acts, an order under paragraph 6(6) above discharging the charging order may direct that the entry be vacated.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend paragraph 6 above by adding to or removing from the kinds of asset for the time being referred to there any asset of a kind which in his opinion ought to be so added or removed.

(4) In this paragraph and paragraph 6 above—
"building society" has the same meaning as in the Building Societies Act 1986;
"dividend" includes any distribution in respect of any unit of a unit trust;
"government funds or stocks" has the same meaning as in the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;


"stock" includes shares, debentures and any securities of the body concerned, whether or not constituting a charge on the assets of that body;
"unit trust" means any trust established for the purpose, or having the effect, of providing, for persons having funds available for investment, facilities for the participation by them, as beneficiaries under the trust, in any profits or income arising from the acquisition, holding, management or disposal of any property whatsoever.

Restraint and charging orders made by the Secretary of State

8.—(1) The power to make a restraint order or charging order under the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State in any case in which it appears to him that the information which it would be necessary to provide in support of an application to the High Court or a judge under those provisions would, if disclosed, be likely to place any person in danger or prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or a person authorised under section 47 of this Act to investigate a relevant offence.

(2) In their application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above paragraph 4 to 6 above shall have effect with the necessary modifications and as if references to the High Court were references to the Secretary of State.

(3) An order made by the Secretary of State by virtue of this paragraph may be varied or discharged under those provisions by the High Court; and the High Court may under paragraph 5(8) above appoint a receiver where a restraint order has been made by the Secretary of State.

(4) A person who contravenes a restraint order made by virtue of this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

Realisation of property

9.—(1) Where—
(a) a confiscation order is made;
(b) the order is not subject to appeal; and
(c) the proceedings in which it was made have not been concluded,
the High Court may, on an application by the prosecution, exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) below.

(2) The court may appoint a receiver in respect of realisable property.

(3) The court may empower a receiver appointed under sub-paragraph (2) above, under paragraph 5 above or in pursuance of a charging order—
(a) to enforce any charge imposed under paragraph 6 above on realisable property or on interest or dividends payable in respect of such property; and
(b) in relation to any realisable property other than property for the time being subject to a charge under that paragraph, to take possession of the property subject to such conditions or exceptions as may be specified by the court.

(4) The court may order any person having possession of realisable property to give possession of it to any such receiver.

(5) The court may empower any such receiver to realise any realisable property in such manner (including the manner of conveyance or transfer of property which is land) as the court may direct.

(6) The court may order any person holding an interest in realisable property to make such payment to the receiver in respect of any beneficial interest held by the defendant or, as the case may be, the recipient of a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this

Act as the court may direct and the court may, on the payment being made, by order transfer, grant or extinguish any interest in the property.

(7) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) above do not apply to property for the time being subject to a charge under paragraph 6 above.

(8) The High Court shall not in respect of any property exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (3)(a), (5) or (6) above unless a reasonable opportunity has been given for persons holding any interest in the property to make representations to the court.

Increase in realisable property

10.—(1) Where—
(a) by virtue of section (Confiscation orders)(7) of this Act the amount which a person is ordered to pay by a confiscation order is less than the amount assessed to be the value of his proceeds of terrorist-related activities; and
(b) the High Court is satisfied, on an application made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) below, that the amount that might be realised in the case of that person is greater than the amount taken into account in making the confiscation order (whether it is greater than was thought when the order was made or has subsequently increased),
the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.

(2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) above may be made either by the prosecution or by a receiver appointed under this Schedule in relation to the realisable property of the person mentioned in that sub-paragraph.

(3) Where a certificate has been issued under subparagraph (1) above the prosecution may apply to the Crown Court for the amount to be paid under the confiscation order to be increased.

(4) The Crown Court may on an application under sub-paragraph (3) above—
(a) substitute for the amount to be paid under the order such amount (not exceeding the amount assessed as the value of the proceeds of terrorist-related activities) as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the amount now shown to be realisable; and
(b) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the order under subsection (1)(c) of section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of the substitution under paragraph (a) above is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) above.

Application of proceeds of realisation and other sums

11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the following sums in the hands of a receiver appointed under this Part or in pursuance of a charging order, that is—
(a) the proceeds of the enforcement of any charge imposed under paragraph 6 above;
(b) the proceeds of the realisation, other than by the enforcement of such a charge, of any property under paragraph 5 or 9 above; and
(c) any other sums, being property held by the defendant,
shall first be applied in payment of such expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner as are payable under paragraph 17(2) below and then shall, after such payments (if any) as the High Court may direct have been made out of those proceeds and sums, be applied on the defendant's behalf towards the satisfaction of the confiscation order.

(2) If, after the amount payable under the confiscation order has been fully paid, any such sums remain in the hands of such a receiver, the receiver shall distribute them—


(a) among such of those who held property which has been realised under this Schedule; and
(b) in such proportions,
as the High Court may direct after giving a reasonable opportunity for such persons to make representations to the court

(3) The receipt of any sum by the proper officer on account of an amount payable under a confiscation order shall reduce the amount so payable, but the proper officer shall apply the money received for the purposes, and in the order, specified in this paragraph.

(4) The proper officer shall first pay any expenses incurred by a person acting as an insolvency practitioner and payable under paragraph 17(2) below but not already paid under sub-paragraph (1) above.

(5) If the money was paid to the proper officer by a receiver appointed under this Schedule or in pursuance of a charging order, the proper officer shall next pay the receiver's remuneration and expenses.

(6) After making—
(a) any payment required by sub-paragraph (4) above; and
(b) in a case to which sub-paragraph (5) above applies, any payment required by that sub-paragraph,
the proper officer shall reimburse any amount paid under paragraph 13(2) below.

(7) The proper officer shall finally pay any compensation directed to be paid out of any sums recovered under the confiscation order under section (Provisions supplementary to section Confiscation orders)(7) of this Act.

(8) Any balance in the hands of the proper officer after he has made all payments required by the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall be treated as a fine for the purposes of section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (application of fines).

(9) Where under sub-paragraph (3) above a sum falls to be applied in payment both of compensation and of other outgoings—
(a) the person entitled to the compensation shall be liable to pay into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom such an amount as bears to the remuneration or expenses the same proportion as the amount payable in accordance with the direction mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) above bears to the total amount payable under the confiscation order;
(b) the proper officer shall deduct from the amount falling to be applied in payment of the compensation an amount equal to the amount of any liability arising by virtue of paragraph (a) above;
(c) notwithstanding the deduction under paragraph (b) above, the person entitled to compensation shall be treated as having received the whole of the amount which falls to be applied in payment of it; and
(d) the amount deducted shall be treated as a fine for the purposes of section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

(10) In this paragraph "the proper officer" means the appropriate officer of the Crown Court.

Exercise of powers by High Court, Secretary of State or receiver

12.—(1) This paragraph applies to the powers conferred on the High Court and the Secretary of State by paragraphs 5 to 9 and 11 above, or on a receiver appointed under this Schedule or in pursuance of a charging order.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, the powers shall be exercised with a view to making available for satisfying the confiscation order or, as the case may be, any confiscation order that may be made in the defendant's case the value for the time being of realisable property held by any person by the realisation of such property.

(3) In the case of realisable property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift

caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act the powers shall be exercised with a view to realising no more than the value for the time being of the gift.

(4) The powers shall be exercised with a view to allowing any person other than the defendant or the recipient of any such gift to retain or recover the value of any property held by him.

(5) An order may be made or other action taken in respect of a debt owed by the Crown (including the Crown in right of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland).

(6) In exercising those powers, no account shall be taken of any obligations of the defendant or of the recipient of any such gift which conflict with the obligation to satisfy the confiscation order.

Receivers: supplementary provisions

13.—(1) Where a receiver appointed under this Schedule or in pursuance of a charging order takes any action—
(a) in relation to any property which is not realisable property, being action which he would be entitled to take if it were such property;
(b) believing, and having reasonable grounds for believing, that he is entitled to take that action in relation to that property,
he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from his action except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence.

(2) Any amount due in respect of the remuneration and expenses of a receiver so appointed shall, if no sum is available to be applied in payment of it under paragraph 11(5) above, be paid by the prosecution or, in a case where proceedings for a relevant offence are not instituted, by the person on whose application the receiver was appointed.

Variation of confiscation orders

14.—(1) If, on an application by the defendant in respect of a confiscation order, the High Court is satisfied that the realisable property is inadequate for the payment of any amount remaining to be paid under the order the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above—
(a) in the case of realisable property held by a person who has been adjudged bankrupt the court shall take into account the extent to which any property held by him may be distributed among creditors; and
(b) the court may disregard any inadequacy in the realisable property which appears to the court to he attributable wholly or partly to anything done by the defendant for the purpose of preserving any property held by a person to whom the defendant had directly or indirectly made a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related provisions) of this Act from any risk of realisation under this Schedule.

(3) Where a certificate has been issued under subparagraph (1) above, the defendant may apply to the Crown Court for the amount to be paid under the confiscation order to be reduced.

(4) The Crown Court shall, on an application under sub-paragraph (3) above—
(a) substitute for the amount to be paid under the order such lesser amount as the court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case; and
(b) substitute for the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the order under subsection (1)(c) of section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (imprisonment in default of payment) a shorter term if the effect of the substitution under paragraph (a) above is to reduce the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (2) of that section as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) above.

Bankruptcy of defendant

15.—(1) Where a person who holds realisable property is adjudged bankrupt—
(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the order adjudging him bankrupt; and
(b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of paragraph 5(8) or 9(5) or (6) above for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under paragraph 5 or 9 above,
is excluded from the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of Part IX of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

(2) Where a person has been adjudged bankrupt, the powers conferred on the High Court and the Secretary of State by paragraphs 5 to 9 and 11 above or on a receiver so appointed shall not be exercised in relation to—
(a) property for the time being comprised in the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of that Part of the said Order of 1989;
(b) property in respect of which his trustee in bankruptcy may (without leave of the High Court) serve a notice under Article 280 or 281 of that Order (after-acquired property and tools, clothes, etc. exceeding value of reasonable replacement); and
(c) property which is to be applied for the benefit of creditors of the bankrupt by virtue of a condition imposed under Article 254(2)(c) of that Order.

(3) Nothing in that Order shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of those powers.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order—
(a) made before the order adjudging the person bankrupt; or
(b) on property which was subject to a restraint order when the order adjudging him bankrupt was made.

(5) Where, in the case of a debtor, an interim receiver stands appointed under Article 259 of the said Order of 1989 and any property of the debtor is subject to a restraint order, the powers conferred on the receiver by virtue of that Order do not apply to property for the time being subject to the restraint order.

(6) Where a person is adjudged bankrupt and has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act—
(a) no order shall be made under Article 312 or 367 of the said Order of 1989 (avoidance of certain transactions) in respect of the making of the gift at any time when proceedings for a relevant offence have been instituted against him and have not been concluded or when property of the person to whom the gift was made is subject to a restraint order or charging order; and
(b) any order made under either of those Articles after the conclusion of the proceedings shall take into account any realisation under this Schedule of property held by the person to whom the gift was made.

Winding up of company holding realisable property

16.—(1) Where realisable property is held by a company and an order for the winding up of the company has been made or a resolution has been passed by the company for the voluntary winding up, the functions of the liquidator (or any provisional liquidator) shall not be exercisable in relation to—
(a) property for the time being subject to a restraint order made before the relevant time; and
(b) any proceeds of property realised by virtue of paragraph 5(8) or 9(5) or (6) above for the time being in the hands of a receiver appointed under paragraph 5 or 9 above.

(2) Where, in the case of a company, such an order has been made or such a resolution has been passed, the powers conferred on the High Court and the Secretary of State by

paragraphs 5 to 9 and 11 above or on a receiver so appointed shall not be exercised in relation to any realisable property held by the company in relation to which the functions of the liquidator are exercisable—
(a) so as to inhibit him from exercising those functions for the purpose of distributing any property held by the company to the company's creditors; or
(b) so as to prevent the payment out of any property of expenses (including the remuneration of the liquidator or any provisional liquidator) properly incurred in the winding up in respect of the property.

(3) Nothing in the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 shall be taken as restricting, or enabling the restriction of, the exercise of those powers.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not affect the enforcement of a charging order made before the relevant time or on property which was subject to a restraint order at the relevant time.

(5) In this paragraph—
"company" means any company which may be wound up under the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and
"the relevant time" means—
(a) where no order for the winding up of the company has been made, the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary winding up;
(b) where such an order has been made and, before the presentation of the petition for the winding up of the company by the High Court, such a resolution had been passed by the company, the time of the passing of the resolution; and
(c) in any other case where such an order has been made, the time of the making of the order.

Insolvency officers dealing with property subject to restraint order

17.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 or any other statutory provision, where—
(a) any person acting as an insolvency practitioner seizes or disposes of any property in relation to which his functions are not exercisable because it is for the time being subject to a restraint order; and
(b) at the time of the seizure or disposal he believes, and has reasonable grounds for believing, that he is entitled (whether in pursuance of an order of the High Court or otherwise) to seize or dispose of that property,
he shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence in so acting; and a person so acting shall have a lien on the property, or the proceeds of its sale, for such of his expenses as were incurred in connection with the liquidation, bankruptcy or other proceedings in relation to which the seizure or disposal purported to take place and for so much of his remuneration as may reasonably be assigned for his acting in connection with those proceedings.

(2) Any person who, acting as an insolvency practitioner, incurs expenses—
(a) in respect of such property as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) above and in so doing does not know and has no reasonable grounds to believe that the property is for the time being subject to a restraint order; or
(b) other than in respect of such property as is so mentioned, being expenses which, but for the effect of a restraint order, might have been met by taking possession of and realising the property,
shall be entitled (whether or not he has seized or disposed of that property so as to have a lien under that paragraph) to payment of those expenses under paragraph 11(1) or (4) above.

Enforcement of orders outside Northern Ireland

18.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the enforcement of confiscation orders and restraint orders—
(a) in England, Wales and Scotland; and
(b) in any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

(2) An Order under this paragraph may apply or modify any of the provisions of this Schedule so far as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate for the purposes of the Order.

Compensation

19.—(1) If proceedings are instituted against a person for a relevant offence or relevant offences and either—
(a) the proceedings do not result in his conviction for any such offence; or
(b) where he is convicted of one or more such offences—
(i) the conviction or convictions concerned are quashed; or
(ii) he is pardoned by Her Majesty in respect of the conviction or convictions concerned,
the High Court may, on an application by a person who held property which was realisable property, order compensation to be paid to the applicant if, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to make such an order.

(2) The High Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case unless the court is satisfied—
(a) that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence concerned, being a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) below; and
(b) that the applicant has suffered loss in consequence of anything done in relation to the property by or in pursuance of an order under this Schedule or Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of this Act.

(3) The High Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case where it appears to the court that the proceedings would have been instituted or continued even if the serious default had not occurred.

(4) The amount of compensation to be paid under this paragraph shall be such as the High Court thinks just in all the circumstances of the case.

(5) Compensation payable under this paragraph shall be paid—
(a) where the person in default was or was acting as a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or as a person authorised under section 47 of this Act, by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland;
(b) where the person in default was a member of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Transitional provisions

20.—(1) In the case of a confiscation order made before the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, section (Realisable property, value and gifts)(41) of this Act shall have effect as if for paragraph (b) there were substituted—
(b) pay any sum which, if the defendant had been adjudged bankrupt or was being wound up, would be among the preferential debts.";
and in that paragraph "the preferential debts"—
(a) in relation to bankruptcy, means the debts to be paid in priority under Article 19 of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (assuming the date of the confiscation order to be the date of the order of adjudication); and
(b) in relation to winding up, means the preferential debts listed in Schedule 18 to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (assuming the date of the confiscation order to be the relevant date for the purpose of that Schedule).

(2) Until the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, paragraphs 11(1) and (4) and 17 above shall have effect as if for references to an insolvency practitioner there were substituted references to an Official Assignee, trustee, liquidator, provisional liquidator or a receiver or manager appointed under section 68 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act 1872.

(3) In any case in which a petition in bankruptcy was presented, or an adjudication in bankruptcy was made, before the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, paragraph 15 above shall have effect with the following modifications—
(a) for references to the bankrupt's estate for the purposes of Part IX of that Order there shall be substituted references to the property of the bankrupt for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Acts (Northern Ireland) 1857 to 1980;
(b) sub-paragraph (2)(b) shall be omitted;
(c) for the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(c) to Article 254(2)(c) of that Order there shall be substituted a reference to Articles 28(4), (5)(c) and (11) and 30(6)(c) of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980;
(d) for the reference in sub-paragraph (3) to that Order there shall be substituted a reference to the Bankruptcy Acts (Northern Ireland) 1857 to 1980;
(e) for the reference in sub-paragraph (5) to an interim receiver appointed under Article 259 of that Order there shall be substituted a reference to a receiver or manager appointed under section 68 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act 1872; and
(f) for the references in sub-paragraph (6) to Articles 312 and 367 of that Order there shall be respectively substituted references to section 12 of the Bankruptcy Amendment Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 and paragraph 16 of the Conveyancing Act (Ireland) 1634.

(4) In any case in which a winding up of a company has commenced, or is treated as having commenced, before the coming into operation of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, paragraph 16 above shall have effect with the substitution for references to that Order of references to the Companies(Northern Ireland)Order 1986.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

THE SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 41, line 43, at end insert—
'(e) paragraph 25A(4) of Schedule 4 (restraint orders by Secretary of State).'

No. 33, in page 42, line 3, at end insert—
'(aa) section 27;'.

No. 34, in line 10, at end insert—
'(ha) section (Assisting another to retain proceeds of terrorist-related activities);'.
(hb) section (Concealing or transferring proceeds of terrorist-related activities);'.

No. 35, in line 11, at end insert—
'(j) paragraph 8(4) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions);
(k) paragraph 4 of Schedule 4.'—[Dr. Mawhinney.]

Schedule 4

AUTHORISED INVESTIGATORS

Mr. Mallon: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 47, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'require' and insert
'A circuit judge may, on an application made by an authorised investigator,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 14, in line 41, leave out from beginning to 'require' and insert
'A circuit judge may, on an application made by an authorised investigator'.

Mr. Mallon: In Committee, I opposed giving to a lay person powers that are normally reserved for a police officer. The amendments are designed to introduce a judicial requirement into an order for a person to attend and answer questions, or an order to produce documents. The legitimate power of a police officer should not be given to a lay person, however qualified. A lay person should not be able to initiate and continue a specialised investigation. That is why the amendment provides that the powers should be given to a judge and not an authorised lay person.

Mr. Trimble: I am puzzled by the drafting of the amendment, which refers to a circuit judge. Are there circuit judges in Northern Ireland? Is the hon. Gentleman not confusing Northern Ireland with the Republic, where there are circuit judges?

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows his youth. When I was about the hon. Gentleman's age, county court judges were known as circuit court judges. I happen to live close to the border and I have some knowledge of judges south of the border, who are also known as circuit court judges.

Dr. Mawhinney: The amendment would confer on circuit court judges a novel inquisitorial role. As drafted, it would authorise them to require persons to attend before them. Such a person would be required to answer questions put by the judge. I suspect that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) may not have intended to introduce such a far-reaching reform, and that his intention was to require an authorised investigator to obtain authority from a ciruit court judge before exercising the powers that are set out in paragraph 2(1) of schedule 4. If that was the hon. Gentleman's intention, I must tell him that it has not been achieved by the amendment. I therefore hope that he will be willing to withdraw it.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman also that amendment No. 14 is defective for the same reason. I hope that he will feel able not to move it.

Mr. Mallon: I do not accept that the amendment is defective. If someone is required to attend, to produce documents and to answer questions, his attendance should be the result of a judicial decision and not that of a lay person. Given the time of night, however, and an ever-bludgeoning thirst, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 50, line 43, at end insert—

'The Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978

1A. In Article 3(2)(a) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 the reference to a fine or other sum adjudged to be paid by or imposed on a conviction does

not include a reference to an amount payable under a confiscation order made under section (Confiscation orders) of this Act.

The Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980

1B. Article 31 of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 shall have effect as if amounts payable under confiscation orders made under section (Confiscation orders) of this Act were debts excepted under paragraph (1 )(a) of that Article.

The Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984

1C. In Article 17(2) of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 after paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
(j) the Table in section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 as it has effect by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(b) of Schedule (Confiscation orders: supplementary provisions) to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.".'

No. 37, in page 51, line 36, at end insert—

'(7) In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 4, in the definition of "a Northern Ireland order" after the words "paragraph 23" there shall be inserted the words "or 25A".

(8) In paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 4, in the definition of "a Northern Ireland order" after the words "paragraph 23" there shall be inserted the words "or 25A".

(9) After paragraph 25 of Schedule 4 there shall be inserted—
25A.—(1) The power to make a restraint order under the provisions of paragraphs 23 and 24 above shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State in any case in which it appears to him that the information which it would be necessary to provide in support of an application to the High Court or a judge under those provisions would, if disclosed, be likely to place any person in danger or prejudice the capability of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or a person authorised under section 47 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 to investigate an offence under Part III of this Act.

(2) In their application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above paragraphs 23 to 25 above shall have effect with the necessary modifications and as if references to the High Court were references to the Secretary of State.

(3) An order made by the Secretary of State by virtue of this paragraph may be varied or discharged by the High Court under paragraph 23(5) or 24(2) above.

(4) A person who contravenes a restraint order made by virtue of this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.".'

No. 38, in page 52, line 7, at end insert—

'The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

4. Article 255 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 shall have effect as if the reference to a fine included a reference to a confiscation order made under section (Confiscation orders) of this Act.

The Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990

5. In Article 2(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 after "1989" there shall be inserted the words "or a relevant offence within the meaning of Part (Confiscation of proceeds of terrorist-related activities) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991".' —[Mr. Brooke.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Today we have had serious and constructive debates on the important issues relevant to the Bill. In the past four months, the House has given most careful consideration to the proposals. I recognise the strength of feeling that hon. Members have brought to that consideration of the Bill. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that, where they have been unable to accept the arguments advanced by the Government, the Government have nevertheless listened carefully to what has been said and have sought to respond with genuine argument.
I acknowledge and thank those outside the House who have played their role in our consideration, who have taken an active interest and made contributions. I have particularly in mind the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, the Committee for the Administration of Justice, the Northern Ireland Law Society and the Bar Council. I hope that those organisations feel that their contributions have been taken seriously and have added to our considerations.
It would be wrong if I did not refer again to the crucial contribution made by Lord Colville. His report formed the backbone of our debates and I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that his report did us all a service. Lord Colville, through his skilled and penetrating analyses, laid out clearly for us the various issues that needed to be addressed.
The Bill has benefited from the consideration that right hon. and hon. Members have given it, here and in Committee. I am grateful to all those who took part for the spirit in which they have contributed to the debate. I also thank and pay tribute to all those who have advised and worked with Ministers as we have studied the issues involved in the Bill.
Those who served on the Committee will appreciate that the Bill has sought to find a balance, which is always a matter of judgment. That important balance is between the need for effective security legislation that offers protection to the people of Northern Ireland against those who would kill and maim and use the bomb and bullet because their arguments are not persuasive at the ballot box and the powers that are given to the security forces and police. When granting such powers, we must be aware of the rights of individuals and the fact that they too require protection in a democratic society. The Government have been conscious of that need for balance throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We believe that we have achieved that balance.
We believe that the Bill will be a valuable and important contribution to security in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Mr. McNamara: The Opposition do not intend to divide on Third Reading, nor on the order that follows.
We have already demonstrated our hostility to the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Because of the situation in Northern Ireland, we recognise that paramilitary campaigns of violence require emergency legislation. We do not believe, however, that the Bill represents the best instrument to meet that threat.
We have tried to adopt a rational approach to the Bill. Terrorism arouses understandable emotions, but we

cannot allow those emotions to override the necessity for a rational response to the threat posed. After all, terrorism represents a failure of reason. Democracies cannot surrender reason.
All of us who have given serious consideration to the Bill are mindful of the fact that it has serious consequences for those who are charged with operating it on our behalf. The members of the security forces have to live and work with the legislation, so the House must be careful not to place them in positions which make their task more difficult, nor which condemn them to further decades of conflict in Northern Ireland. Too many elements of the Bill would do so.
In Committee and on Report, the Minister of State often referred to the need for balance within this legislation. We accept that the Government have had to use their judgment in choosing between sometimes conflicting demands. Our objection is that they have systematically and continuously come down on the wrong side of the argument. Nowhere is that more clearly seen than in the Government's treatment of Lord Colville's careful and thorough reports. Glowing tributes have been paid to his work; then most of it has been ignored.
Lord Colville's reviews have provided a focus for reasoned argument over the logic and nature of emergency legislation. If devolved institutions emerge in Northern Ireland, and when perhaps security powers are transferred, the people of Northern Ireland will be able to ensure proper democratic scrutiny of much of this legislation.
Too many of Lord Colville's recommendations have been travestied or ignored by the Government. For instance, clause 30 on the possession of items connected with terrorism contains a completely distorted version of a proposal by Lord Colville. Similarly, Lord Colville proposed a switch to the certifying in of scheduled offences rather than scheduling out. This modest reform, which would have helped to ensure that the Diplock courts were employed for the purpose for which they were designed —trials involving terrorist offences—was completely ignored.
Worst of all has been the Government's decision to pay no attention to Lord Colville's eloquent plea for the removal of the power of internment from the statute book. The Opposition are convinced that that is a serious mistake which undermines the credibility of efforts to create a normal and democratic society in Northern Ireland. It represents a commitment by the Government to cling to every last ounce of arbitrary executive authority. It is a hangover from the special powers Act. It reveals a state of mind which is not conducive to a focused, rational and intelligent security policy.
Hegel may be alive and well in Craigavon, and he is also active in Hillsborough, but Belfast and Northern Ireland in the 1990s should not be confused with Berlin in the 1820s. To the Opposition, order and freedom do not appear as conflicting alternatives. We believe that political order is best guaranteed by freedom.
Lord Colville's recommendations provided the Government with an opportunity to make a fresh start in a difficult and sensitive field. They came down on the side of coercion rather than reason. Eventually the Government will have to accept that reason alone is the main weapon to defeat terrorism in all its forms.

Mr. Mallon: After 44 hours of debate on the Bill, which has twice been in the House, and in Committee, concluding in the week in which we had to deal with a motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, we should not prolong the agony. I thank the Minister and officials for their courtesy during our consideration of the Bill. I also thank the Chairman of the Committee for his unfailing help and courtesy at all times.

Mr. Canavan: I am not in favour of giving the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, and I shall briefly explain why.
The Bill is indicative of the hypocrisy and double standards of the British Government and the whole British establishment. The Government claim to believe in the unity of the United Kingdom and they say that Northern Ireland is and should remain a part of the United Kingdom. If the unity of the United Kingdom means anything, the Government should be consistent and ensure that equal standards of justice apply to all parts of the United Kingdom.
The Bill reinforces and continues inferior standards of justice in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The people there are subjected to powers of arrest, search and detention, and, above all, are deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial according to the principles and standards of justice which apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The Government's excuse for that is the emergency situation in Northern Ireland. How long will the emergency last? An emergency, by its very nature, should be temporary. When this legislation was first introduced in the early 1970s, it was considered to be a temporary measure. Then it was renewed and now we are getting further measures, albeit with some amendments.
The Government have lamentably failed to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. Their cure is clearly not working. People are still being killed almost daily in Northern Ireland. To imagine that those problems will be solved by more and more repressive legislation is naive, or worse, it is to try to fool the people inside and outside the House. Those problems will never be solved simply by repressive legislation. It is about time that the Government started to look more seriously at the underlying political reasons for the insecurity and instability in Northern Ireland.
It could be argued that Northern Ireland has been an unstable entity since its inception. It has been unstable politically, economically and socially. That instability is inherent within the system and the constitution of the Province. The sooner that the Government recognise that problem and address it and work towards the peaceful reunification of Ireland the better.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) suggested that the Bill is inadequate. I agree, but I do not agree with much of the rest of his analysis about how to begin to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It is oversimple to suggest that a move to a united Ireland would in some way solve the problems.
Measures which allow the use of extra force to establish the authority of the state begin to make the state less acceptable to minorities which might be disenchanted and see their loyalties as lying elsewhere. We need serious measures to improve economic and social welfare in Northern Ireland. The Government's enterprise culture in Northern Ireland and the unemployment there have not assisted in that.
We need to tackle the basis of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Emergency powers may be necessary in certain periods, but other factors are more important.
Next week, the House will debate Northern Ireland appropriations—which will be like discussing Northern Ireland's budget. We can debate then matters of significance, rather than problems such as whether windows need to be fitted correctly in the Divis flats and other issues that, unfortunately, hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies sometimes choose to raise rather than bread-and-butter matters.
Democracy is difficult to achieve in the circumstances because of the need for people to share and to interconnect. Democracy in Northern Ireland in terms of a devolved Government could be possible with a Bill of Rights that guaranteed minority rights. In certain circumstances, Protestants can find themselves in the minority and feel oppressed, just as Catholics do—although their experience in that respect may be greater. That is why we must introduce measures such as fair employment legislation.
Even more important is the need to encourage all those brave people in Northern Ireland who take a stand against terrorism and try to take the ground from under it. Earlier, I mentioned Nancy Gracey and the movement comprised of families who campaign against intimidation and terror techniques such as knee-capping. I must refer also to those who run the peace trains between Belfast and Dublin, who attempt to ensure that the line is not disrupted by IRA terrorism of the kind that we are now experiencing to some extent in this country. We should aim to share to some degree our responses with the people in Ireland.
There also exist three New Consensus groups. One operates from Northern Ireland, another from Ireland, and the third from this country. They stand for the principles of devolved government, a Bill of Rights, and integrated education. The latter should start with teacher training colleges. It is an obscenity that one such college is Protestant-controlled and that another is Catholic-controlled, and that the only integrated teacher training is at Belfast university.
There is a trade union movement that says, "Hands off my mate", which seeks to defend people against oppression. There is much that is good in Northern Ireland, and it should be promoted more.
The failure in Northern Ireland is the failure of the Northern Ireland politicians on all sides— —

Rev. William McCrea: rose——

Mr. Barnes: —one of whom is trying to intervene, who in essence represent sectarian divisions and do not do enough to gain support from other groups.
We should be seeing from the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists an attempt to alter their stance and gain support from the Catholic community, while the SDLP should try to gain support from the Protestant community. Only two Northern Ireland parties are


attempting to do anything of that kind, but they are finding it difficult to get any grounding. I refer to the Workers party and the Alliance party, which at least try to have a broader appeal.

Rev. William McCrea: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. The hon. Member said that there is in Northern Ireland one Catholic-controlled university and one Protestant-controlled university. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to name the university that he says is Protestant-controlled.

Mr. Barnes: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that we are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill and that he must relate his remarks to the contents of the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: our agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall briefly respond to that intervention. I understand that there are two teacher training colleges, one which is essentially Catholic-influenced and the other which is Protestant-influenced—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may correct me on the details. I understand that a third avenue for teacher training exists in the university, and is more clearly integrated. I know that some Protestants go to the Catholic-dominated teacher training college and vice versa. I know that some Protestant Members of Parliament have been to the Catholic-dominated college. Nevertheless, that influence needs to be broken down. If we are to get integration in education, it needs to begin with teacher training. Perhaps I am a little short of detailed information— —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is again straying from the Bill.

Mr. Barnes: I shall conclude my speech now. I was trying to argue that the emergency provisions could have been different if Lord Colville's full recommendations had been taken into account and that they would then have been more acceptable. Such provisions, even if they are in an ideal form, can be acceptable only if economic and social welfare, democracy, devolved government, a Bill of Rights and community involvement are taking place at the same time, because they are what takes away the grounding for terrorism and, in the end, they are more important than emergency provisions, although I realise the significance of this legislation.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 3.

Division No. 92]
[1.12 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James


Amess, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amos, Alan
Arnold, Sir Thomas





Ashby, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Beggs, Roy
Moate, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mudd, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Boswell, Tim
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Norris, Steve


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Paice, James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Pawsey, James


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Chapman, Sydney
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Chope, Christopher
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Hon Tom


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Day, Stephen
Shelton, Sir William


Fallon, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Franks, Cecil
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Freeman, Roger
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodlad, Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stern, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stevens, Lewis


Gregory, Conal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hague, William
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hannam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harris, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hawkins, Christopher
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hayes, Jerry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Trimble, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Janman, Tim
Wallace, James


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Waller, Gary


Kilfedder, James
Ward, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Watts, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Wells, Bowen


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wheeler, Sir John


Knowles, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Leigh, Edward (Galnsbor'gh)
Wood, Timothy


Lord, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McCrea, Rev William



Maclean, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


Malins, Humfrey



Mawhinney, Dr Brian





NOES


Cryer, Bob
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Resolved,
That the draft northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provision) (continuance) order 1991,which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved. —[Mr. Brooke.]

Tin Mining (Cornwall)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The last Adjournment debate that I secured on the Cornish tin industry, in 1988, began at 2.26 am. It is a relief that tonight's debate is not starting quite so late.
I thank the Minister for being present. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is here and I know that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) will be here shortly.
In the debate in 1988, we regretted the loss of 200 jobs in the industry. It is always tragic when jobs are lost because of the suffering that is caused, not least to the individuals involved. Tonight, we are debating the loss of 415 jobs; 415 families will be devastated.
We are probably now discussing the end, at least for the foreseeable future, of tin mining in Cornwall, purely as a result of a Government decision. It is a tragedy for those who will lose their jobs and for the surrounding communities and it is an untimely death blow to a tradition of mining in our county which goes back 2,500 years. I have no hesitation in blaming the Government for that.
I blame the Government because Carnon has been operating on the basis of a support scheme to which the Government were apparently committed and on the basis of money already promised. The Government have reneged on that commitment. They have broken their promise in a disgraceful manner, informing the company without warning late on Friday afternoon, and without letting hon. Members know what was coming.
The most extraordinary point about the decision is that it defies all logic. The Government had promised a further £1·7 million loan to the mines and RTZ was due to invest, on the back of that, a further £2·4 million, which it is withdrawing as a result of the Government's decision. Having invested £23 million of public funds so far, for the Government to pull out now to save £1·7 million is senseless and a tragic letdown for the people.
Let us remember that the package came about by agreement and set certain targets. The company had to keep to those targets. Had it not done so, the Government decision might have been justified, but the company did keep the targets—indeed, it exceeded them—so what justification can we find for the Government's decision?
The Government might have argued that they could not afford it, but that patently is not the case. Apart from anything else, the money was earmarked and the company asked for not a penny more than it had been promised.
The Government might also have argued that the company had not met its targets for cost cutting, but that is not so. The company had been successful in beating the cost reduction targets set by the Department. The break-even point in 1988 was £6,734 per tonne. For 1990, it was down to £4,340 a tonne. For the last quarter for which figures are available, it was down to £3,703 a tonne and it was still falling dramatically, week by week, day by day. Tin is currently being sold at £3,000 per tonne, so the company is getting close to the break-even point. As most analysts predict that the price of tin will rise in the next year, the company could soon be in a position to make profits once again, as it was only a few months ago.
Why would the Government not give the company a chance? The projected break-even point in the Department of Trade and Industry plan was £3,500 per tonne by 1993. That has already been more than surpassed, as the figures that I have given make clear, so how can the Government justify their decision? The only people who did not meet their targets were the Government themselves. When the deal was agreed, exchange rates were projected at under $1·50 to the pound. If that were so today, the company would be highly profitable. If anything has failed to meet targets, it is Government economic policy.
Another possibility occurs. Perhaps the Government do not believe that the area needs the support that tin mining provides economically and socially. Perhaps they believe that the area is wealthy enough, or sufficiently full of job opportunities. Let me put the record straight. Carnon has a loyal labour force who have not received a pay rise for four years, precisely to improve the chances of making the company a success. The job losses come at a time when employment prospects in the area are particularly bleak. In the Redruth-Camborne area—the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who represents the area, will seek to intervene in a moment —unemployment is running at 15·7 per cent. and nearly one in four males in the area are unemployed. Unemployment in Cornwall as a whole has reached a percentage in the teens and is rising more rapidly than anywhere else in the south-west, or in almost the entire country. So it cannot possibly be that the area does not need the support that the Government were in a position and had pledged to provide.
The Government might have argued that the decision was to save taxpayers' money, but in truth they cannot justify such an argument. The costs of unemployment benefit to those losing their jobs will amount to £1·2 million per year, and the indirect knock-on effect on other jobs—on previous occasions the Government have talked about the other jobs supported by the investment—means that the figure is more likely to be £2 million per year. That discounts the loss of tax and national insurance payments. Even if we assume that not all the people will join the unemployment queues directly, it is certain that there will be no net financial gain to the Treasury.
More than that, the Government are in the process of writing off not just a £1·7 million loan but the whole £23 million of public money that has so far been invested in the mines. That is short-sighted, mean-minded and an ill-thought-through waste of public money.
As I speak, the water level in Wheal Jane mine is rising. As it does so, it guarantees that that mine will never be reopened. It is an extraordinary, wasteful and despicable action that the Government have taken. I refuse to accept that it saves the Treasury money in any respect. It may save the Department of Trade and Industry money, but it simply costs the Department of Social Secirity and other Departments money.
If the Government seriously argue, as they argued this morning, that they do not justify their actions in such terms and that it is not for the DTI to consider other costs, perhaps it is time for the Prime Minister or someone more broad-minded and with a little more sense to reverse the decision that has been taken.
Lastly, the Government may argue that the tin price will not pick up, that current low prices will stretch far into the future and that Cornish tin mining will never be profitable. Where is the evidence for that? I do not believe


that the decision is based on sound reasoning. It is purely political, and bad politics at that. Most analysts predict that the price of tin will rise in the next year. It is hard to argue that it will not rise sooner or later, given that most mines around the world operate at substantial losses.
Even if Ministers are right, the company believes that if the rest of the loan had been paid, the investment would have allowed South Crofty to break even within the year and would have paid for Wheal Jane to be kept on care and maintenance until a rise in the price of tin occurred. Even if we accept that the current price will not increase, there is no logic in pulling out the investment because if it had been allowed to go ahead we could still have seen the company at least on an even keel for the foreseeable future.
The company's figures might have been wrong, but those involved with the company had a lot to lose personally if the figures were wrong. Surely the betting was good enough to put in £1·7 million of Government money, which had already been promised, especially when the cost of not doing so was to write off the £23 million Government investment so far and to put 400 or more people on the dole at a yearly cost in excess of the £1·7 million involved. The mines could have been kept open, men could have been kept in jobs and Cornwall's tin mining tradition could have been kept alive.
For a Government who claim to favour business-like practice, they have adopted an appallingly short-sighted and extremely unbusiness-like approach. I return to my original question: what possible justification is there for their decision? I believe that there is no possible justification.
In response to my Adjournment debate in March 1988, the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), said:
The Government are convinced that Carnon can win through—that is why we have continued our support—but it will require considerable—and I emphasise 'considerable'—efforts by all those concerned with the company. I feel sure that this effort will be forthcoming."—[Official Report, 29 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1064.]
The truth is that the effort was indeed forthcoming. The targets were met, but the Government let us down all the same. They did not stick with it when the company and the people there stuck with it through thick and thin.
Do the Government have the courage to make the change to help now? Will they help first and foremost by reversing the decision? If not, will they at least help by suspending the loan rather than pulling out of the deal altogether? Will they at least give the company and the men the chance to come back and make it work? They should not rule that out. I know that everything will be done to protect South Crofty so that it might open again if the price of tin revives sufficiently. Will the Government at least consider renewing support if that happens? Will the Government help not just the company but also all the men who fear for their redundancy compensation, as well as the supplying firms that fear for their debts, by guaranteeing tonight that the outstanding Government loan will not be called in?
At our meeting with the Minister this morning we learned that the Government have decided only for now not to call in the loan—apparently to see if the company will survive, subject to a satisfactory scheme. Can the Minister suggest what such a satisfactory scheme might be? What is meant by the words "satisfactory scheme"? At this morning's meeting the Minister said, "At a point in

time, if the company failed, we would have to put in a submission"—a submission to call in the loan. That would bankrupt the company, and it could also bankrupt many of its suppliers and rule out much-needed redundancy payments for the work force. That is a crucial aspect of the Government's position.
What we were told earlier today was more worrying than the indications that had been given publicly up till then. Can the Minister give a pledge that the loan will not be called in? If the jobs do go, will the Minister help by investing the money that the DTI has already set aside in new jobs in this area—an area of high unemployment in a county where wages are already below the national average? Will the Minister pledge to invest the money withdrawn from the mines in job creation measures for the area?
In response to my Adjournment debate in March 1988, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West, said:
I think I can say that Cornishmen have a good friend in the Government, and that our generosity, while not necessarily unprecedented—that would be too strong a word —was certainly considerable".—[Official Report, 29 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1060.]
This week, the Cornish have found out just how lacking in generosity the Government really are. They have discovered the pain of betrayal. They have discovered that they have no friend in the Government.
All Cornwall Members feel outraged by what has happened. I know that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne wants to speak, and I look forward to his contribution.

Mr. David Mudd: I shall not repeat the arguments that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has put forward so eloquently and succinctly. I endorse his every word and his every sentiment. I must however, question some of the seeming inconsistencies in the reasons given by the Department of Trade and Industry over the past 10 days for its decision to end support.
It has been said that the depressed price of tin is a factor. Yet, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Truro, the Government's friends in the City—the commodity analysts—have come up with a totally different prediction. It is amazing that the DTI will accept some advice from these people but, when it suits, reject other advice.
It has been suggested that the DTI's precipitate decision was based on an unseemly scramble for safety when it was pointed out that, as Carnon Consolidated was technically insolvent, the Department would be acting illegally in making any more money available.
There are two basic tests of insolvency. The first is cash flow—the ability to pay debts as they fall due. Certainly, for the last three years Carnon has paid all its bills on time, and it continues to do so. It therefore cannot be argued that Carnon is insolvent on that score. On the basis of the second test—whether liabilities exceed assets—the company is technically insolvent because it has £31 million of loans on the balance sheet. However, this peculiar status was arrived at through the DTI's suggested rescue package of 1986. So if that technical argument is put forward, the Department made it inevitable that the company would operate while insolvent and quite improperly advanced it


£23 million. Either way, it seems that over a period of four years there was a leisurely acceptance or accommodation of convenience, which culminated in a mad-dash disengagement decision—a decision taken, and announced, on the evening of 22 February.
I may be a simple soul, but I see a possible scenario which might explain that strange situation. The Treasury wants immediate savings from the DTI; the DTI looks at its books, and Carnon emerges as the most convenient instant victim. The DTI does not want to pull the plug, but is reminded that the alleged failure to comply with the package gives it a let-out. Of course, if the DTI still wants to carry on with the finance, a word to the Public Accounts Committee might be awkward and embarrassing. Afraid of the Treasury heavies on one side and the PAC nasties on the other, the DTI rushes into instant disengagement. Whether that is fact or fantasy, time alone will tell—I suspect that we shall not know tonight.
Something else nauseates me about the Department's attitude and position. It claims that, six months ago, it was beginning to consider suspending support to Carnon. In six months it could have at least prepared contingency plans to offset the predicted loss of jobs and the already recognised worsening economic situation in Cornwall, but it did not and still has not. It claims that since west Cornwall already gets every permitted form of assistance, everything possible is already being done.
Even now, I would like my hon. Friend's assurance that he will consider a few suggestions. First, that the withdrawal of finance should be regarded as a moratorium on payment rather than a cut-off. Secondly, that during that moratorium, the Department of Trade and Industry loans will be restructured to be of a low principal, high premium nature, thus getting the loan off the balance sheet and opening the door to external investment if that is what the Department wants. Thirdly, that during the moratorium, the Department will help meet the costs of keeping South Crofty's pumps operating. Fourthly—the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) touched on this—if £1 million or £1·6 million is theoretically being saved, it is money that has already been allocated to jobs and industries in west Cornwall. I would like an assurance that that money will be allocated immediately to the regeneration, sustaining and attraction of more industrial opportunities in west Cornwall.
In the meantime, for reasons that have still not been explained to my satisfaction or that of many other people, two tin mines, more than 400 jobs, countless small enterprises and the communities that lie between Camborne, Redruth and Truro are under a death threat because, if I am correct, the DTI is scuttling away from what it fears could have been an embarrassing squeeze between the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee.
As I waited to see my noble Friend the Minister for Industry, I picked up a brochure in the lobby of the Department of Trade and Industry. It lists its objectives, thus:
Our objectives will be to produce a climate which promotes enterprise and prosperity. In all our work we will take account of the differing circumstances of the region and of the inner cities to enable those who live there to help themselves.

Once, that remark would have caused a ripple of ironic laughter in Cornwall, but tonight, tragically, there is no laughter in Cornwall's mining communities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) are much concerned about the state of Cornish tin mining and the effect on the local economy. I regret the current situation, and appreciate their concern. I pay tribute to the assiduous way in which they argue on behalf of their constituents. I also pay tribute to the assiduous manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is present tonight, acts on behalf of his constituents.
The Department has strongly supported the South Crofty mine in Camborne and the Wheal Jane mine near Truro since 1986. Geology has made Cornwall a land of great beauty. Likewise, geology gave it great mineral wealth. That has been exploited over the years for arsenic, copper, tin, and china clay. I understand the pride Cornishmen feel in their mineral industries, and the way "Cousin Jacks" have spread their mining skills around the world. Trade in metals has long been international. Today, international competition is at the root of the Cornish tin problems.
Hon. Members have expressed concern at the number of jobs lost. Until the recent redundancies, Carnon Holdings Limited employed 415 workers, 160 of whom were to be made redundant anyway from the closure of Wheal Jane announced last year and reductions at South Crofty. The extra number of tin miners losing their jobs is therefore about 255. Most of the workers live in the Camborne and Truro travel-to-work areas. We are advised that some 150 workers are being re-engaged temporarily to run down the South Crofty-related operations on to a care and maintenance basis.
These people have worked hard, justifying the position taken by the Department in 1986 when it offered Carnon, then owned by RTZ, a loan of £15 million. In 1988, at the time of the management buy-out, the £15 million loan was continued and a further £10 million loan was offered. Both loans are interest-free. Repayments are due only if profits rise above a threshold, so the management buy-out received further substantial advantages. The loans were for a project of capital works to lower costs, but they were not automatic. To safeguard the taxpayer, the Department had to be satisfied about the future viability of the company—I stress those words.
As part of the management buy-out in 1988, RTZ offered an interest-free loan of £10 million. In all, the Department has lent Carnon £23·35 milion, and RTZ £7·7 million. Under the buy-out, a workers' trust received 20 per cent. of Carnon's equity. It also has a seat on the board. Two non-executive directors served on the board for a period. In spite of all this, the company has been unable to achieve what it set out to do when the loans were offered to the buy-out in 1988.
In January 1990, the tin price was £4,000 per tonne, although the previous year, 1989, it had averaged –5,300. There was concern that the tin price had shown no sign of recovery even though experts had been taking bullish


views late in 1989. By the end of 1990, the price had not even maintained its January 1990 level. On the contrary, it had dropped to £2,900.
From early 1990 therefore, the company's officials sought to bring new equity and other finance into the Carnon group. Their aim was to gain a buffer to secure the tin business's long-term future. They sought our help in this. We agreed in principle that, as one element of any acceptable deal, we would restructure our loans.
In the middle of last year, it was apparent to us that, without additional finance, tin mining on the then proposed basis was no longer viable. I remind hon. Members of the stress that I laid on the viability of the company. We were therefore compelled to declare the project in jeopardy. Under the loan agreement, this meant that we were not obliged to make further loan advances. Nevertheless, despite serious and growing doubts about the project's future, we took the view that a prospect of loan repayment remained and, at the company's request, we advanced more money during the second half of 1990. We advanced another £400,000 to the company and RTZ more than £800,000 to give the company every chance successfully to finalise its negotiations to raise further equity finance. However, in spite of its efforts, it was, in the event, unable to do so.
Given this situation, and after careful study of Carnon's latest plans, we had to conclude that the project was not viable in the longer term. I stress that this was a decision that took account of all relevant facts, including payment of the remainder of the DTI and RTZ loans.
Today—as I have shown, we have been here before—experts expect the tin price to rise, a point made by the hon. Member for Truro. The question is when, by how much, and sustained at what average level. Brazilian producers increased their output from around 7,000 tonnes in 1978 to 44,000 tonnes in 1988. That was out of world totals of 200,000 tonnes in 1978 but only 155,000 tonnes in 1988. Prices have dropped. Other producers have had to cut their output. The upside for prices is limited by the ability of producers overseas to produce more if prices rise, and by the existence of sizeable stocks.
Costs are the other side of the picture. Tin is the company's only substantial revenue-earning activity. It

has a number of outgoings to support. Costs can vary depending on how much is spent on capital works and how much is spent on mine development necessary to replenish reserves of ore as they are consumed. It should be possible to cut costs per tonne in the short term at the expense of the longer term. The analysis of South Crofty's position is certainly not straightforward. Moreover, many other tin producers have been under the same acute pressure to reduce their costs. Carnon's efforts, including the wage deals accepted by the workers, have not therefore given Carnon the relative advantage for which one might have hoped.
All those and other factors were studied before we decided that it would not be a proper use of public funds to advance more money for the project. I hope that I have convinced the House that we have made every effort to secure the future of the Cornish tin industry—short of spending taxpayers' money in a financially improper way.
Hon. Members raised some wider issues about Cornwall. Despite our five years of support, we have been accused in the local press and elsewhere of bad faith and of ignoring the needs of Cornwall—a point made by the hon. Member for Truro. I accept that unemployment in parts of Cornwall is—as regrettably it is elsewhere—far too high. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne made that point. Trying to keep unemployment down by sustaining jobs in uneconomic areas of activity is no answer. It has been tried before—in steel, shipbuilding and the motor industry. Inevitably it failed.
The only answer is to provide jobs producing goods and services that people want to buy and to do so at a profit. For that reason, my Department tries to help business to improve its competitiveness. We have done much in Cornwall in recent years to that end. In the past two years, more than 1,000 Cornish businesses have sought our help under the enterprise initiative. More than 330 small companies have received a total of more than £2 million in support under regional enterprise grant schemes, and £3·5 million in regional selective assistance has been offered. We will continue to give all the regional aid help that we can.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.